Statuto v. Nike, Inc.

Background

Andrew Statuto sued Nike, Inc., alleging disability discrimination and failure to accommodate under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the amended complaint, Statuto had anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder related to military combat, later experienced a chronic respiratory illness, underwent an emergency appendectomy, and developed kidney stones.

Statuto alleged that Nike granted or recognized several leaves and work adjustments, including leave for his respiratory illness, a transfer to the night shift because of concerns about contracting COVID-19, leave after his appendectomy, and absences or early departure related to kidney stones. He alleged that a supervisor said, “You can’t be that sick,” later warned that attendance problems could lead to termination, and that Nike terminated him on April 23, 2021, because of the cumulative effect of his medical-related absences. He also alleged that Nike did not discuss possible accommodations with him and that he had more than 180 hours of accrued paid time off when he was terminated.

Nike’s Motion and the Court’s Analysis

Nike moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which asks whether a complaint contains enough factual allegations to plausibly support a legal claim. At this stage, the court accepted well-pleaded allegations as true and drew reasonable inferences in Statuto’s favor; it did not weigh evidence or decide what actually happened.

The court rejected Nike’s argument that the claims were time-barred. It stated that the relevant laws generally impose a three-year limitations period and that individual failures to accommodate are separate acts. Although accommodation requests made before January 26, 2020 could not themselves support timely relief, the alleged termination on April 23, 2021 occurred within the three-year period. The court also said that earlier medical conditions, leaves, accommodation events, and the supervisor’s comment could be considered as evidence of conduct within the limitations period.

The court concluded that Statuto adequately alleged disability-discrimination and failure-to-accommodate claims. It found that his alleged respiratory illness and other serious health conditions qualified as disabilities under the two New York laws, which have broader definitions of disability than the federal Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint also plausibly alleged that Nike knew about the conditions, that Statuto could perform his job with reasonable accommodations, and that Nike terminated him because of disability-related absences. The supervisor’s comments and the warning about further absences supported a minimal plausible inference of discriminatory motivation.

Disposition

The court denied Nike’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). The court granted Statuto leave to file an amended complaint adding his requested hostile-work-environment claim if he chose to do so by April 12. The clerk was directed to close the motion listed at ECF No. 20. The opinion does not state that the motion was denied with or without prejudice.