Arnold v. Research Found. for the State Univ. of N.Y.

216 F.Supp.3d 275

Carol ARNOLD, Plaintiff,

v.The RESEARCH FOUNDATION FOR the STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant.

15–cv–05971 (ADS) (SIL)

United States District Court, E.D. New York.

Signed October 20, 2016

Romano & Associates, Attorneys for the Plaintiff, 400 Garden City Plaza, Suite 432, Garden City, NY 11530, By: Michael Joseph Romano, Esq., Of Counsel.

Amanda A. Maleszweski, Corporate Counsel for the Defendant, 35 State Street, Albany, NY 12207.

Dowling Law, PLLC, Attorneys for the Defendant, 12 Second Avenue, Rensselaer, NY 12144, By: Joanmarie Dowling, Esq., Of Counsel.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION & ORDER

SPATT, District Judge.

This case arises from allegations by the Plaintiff Carol Arnold (the "Plaintiff") that her employer, the Defendant, the Research Foundation for the State University of New York (the "Defendant RFSUNY") discriminated against her in violation of the Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601 (the "FMLA"), and the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. EXEC. LAW § 296 (the "NYSHRL"). Presently before the Court is a motion by the Plaintiff, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (Fed. R. Civ. P.) 15(a)(2) to amend her complaint to add seven additional party defendants; to modify one of her claims; and to add five more claims. For the following reasons, her motion is granted in part and denied in part.

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Alleged Facts

1) The Alleged Facts from the Original Complaint

The Plaintiff is a resident of Suffolk County in New York State. (Compl. at ¶ 4.) In August 2003, the Defendant RFSUNY hired the Plaintiff as a full-time temporary worker. (Id. at ¶ 6.) The Defendant RFSUNY is a 501(c)(3) non-profit educational domestic corporation that employs more than fifty (50) individuals. (Id. at ¶ 5). In November of 2003, the Defendant RFSUNY hired the Plaintiff to a full-time permanent position, and promoted her a year later in November of 2004. (Id. at ¶¶ 7, 9). The Plaintiff alleges that at all relevant times, she was an exemplary employee and received performance evaluations that rated her no less than "good". (Id. at ¶ 10).

On October 8, 2013, the Plaintiff suffered a fractured/dislocated hip when she fell in her home and her injury required total hip replacement surgery. (Id. at ¶¶ 12, 13). The Plaintiff underwent surgery the next day on October 9, 2013, and took short-term disability leave from her employment from October 9, 2013 through December 27, 2013. (Id. at ¶¶ 13, 14). When the Plaintiff returned to work on December 27, 2013, she alleges that her manager Sheila Routh ("Routh") required her to work a reduced thirty (30) hour work week, despite the fact that it was neither desired by the Plaintiff nor was it medically required. (Id. at ¶ 16.) Although the complaint does not state when, the Plaintiff alleges that after she returned to work, she developed complications that caused her chronic pain and affected her ability to "bend[ ], lift [ ], think[ ], mov[e], and walk[ ]." (Id. at ¶¶ 17–19). The Plaintiff, at her doctor's direction, therefore requested to take leave under the Family Medical Leave Act so that she could care for herself. (Id. at ¶ 20).

The Defendant RFSUNY received the FMLA application on October 15, 2014, and sent a letter to the Plaintiff on October 21, 2014, stating that her FMLA request was denied. (Id. at ¶¶ 22, 23). On October 30, 2014, the Plaintiff met with Steve Yamond ("Yamond"), a representative of the Defendant RFSUNY's Human Resources Department who gave her a letter advising her of her immediate termination. (Id. at ¶¶ 24–26). Yamond asked the Plaintiff for her identification and keys, and allegedly neither he nor the letter informed her why she had been terminated.

The Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a complaint on October 16, 2015. In the original complaint, the Plaintiff alleged four causes of action. The two claims made under the FMLA allege failure to provide leave and retaliation. The other two claims made under the NYSHRL allege disability discrimination and failure to provide accommodation or engage in interactive process. The original complaint did not incorporate any exhibits either explicitly or by reference.

2) The Alleged Facts from the Proposed Amended Complaint

In support of the instant motion for leave to amend, the Plaintiff submitted a proposed amended complaint ("PAC") for the Court's review. The PAC seeks to add the following individuals to the action as additional party defendants: Yamond, Routh, Cynthia Traub ("Traub"), Kristen Blandi ("Blandi"), Kathleen Green ("Green"), Rene Curry ("Curry"), and Clara Pereira ("Pereira") (collectively, the "proposed individual defendants"). Each of the proposed individual defendants worked for the Defendant RFSUNY during the relevant period. The PAC includes the following additional facts.

When the Plaintiff returned to work after her surgery, she allegedly needed to use handicapped accessible restrooms. (PAC at ¶ 39). The Defendant RFSUNY permitted students who were not handicapped to use restrooms that were designated for handicapped people, and it made it "impossible for [the Plaintiff] to use the restroom at times." (Id. ). Traub, Routh, Curry and Pereira made disparaging comments about the Plaintiff's use of the handicapped bathroom; the duration of the Plaintiff's use of the bathroom; her use of a cane; and her use of the freight elevator. (Id. at ¶¶ 42–44). The Defendant RFSUNY also requested that the Plaintiff return her freight elevator key, which other employees were permitted to keep. (Id. at ¶ 45). Traub allegedly prevented the Plaintiff from making coffee, and also took cigarette breaks at the end of the day forcing the Plaintiff to leave later than she desired. (Id. at ¶ 41).

On September 30, 2014, the Plaintiff's neurologist Dr. Kowalska recommended that the Plaintiff take a leave from work because of the complications from her surgery. (Id. at ¶ 28). The Plaintiff emailed Routh after speaking with her, requesting leave under the FMLA. (Id. ). Routh never responded in any way to the email. (Id. ). After the Defendant RFSUNY received the Plaintiff's FMLA application, Blandi "issued multiple documents with incorrect date(s) of leave and other information." (Id. at ¶ 32). Blandi and Yamond did not provide the Plaintiff with any information about medical benefits despite her requests. (Id. at ¶ 46.)

After the Defendant RFSUNY terminated the Plaintiff, the proposed individual defendants "prohibited her from recovering her personal items [,] including but not limited to, gloves and a chair cushion." (Id. at ¶ 40). The Plaintiff further alleges that someone went through her desk; that Green removed the personal items listed above; and that the Plaintiff's cushion, gloves, and miscellaneous papers were missing. (Id. at ¶ 40). The Plaintiff further alleges that the Defendant RFSUNY has not yet informed her why it terminated her. (Id. at ¶ 38.). Although there is reference in the causes of action that "[the Plaintiff] was the oldest person in her position", (Id. at ¶ 91), the description of facts does not state how old the Plaintiff was, but instead states that "she was the longest employee in that position". (Id. at ¶ 47). The Court reviewed the exhibits listed below and found her date of birth listed on one of the documents. (Pl. Ex. C). The Plaintiff was sixty-two (62) years old when she was terminated.

The Plaintiff provided four exhibits in support of her motion to amend: an email sent to the Plaintiff on December 3, 2013, referencing her return to work and prior FMLA leave; a letter sent from Blandi to the Plaintiff on October 2, 2014, concerning the Plaintiff's request for leave under the FMLA; a disability benefits claim form for the period beginning September 30, 2014, with the Plaintiff's physician's purported signature; a letter sent from Blandi to the Plaintiff on October 21, 2014, informing her that her request for leave under the FMLA was denied; the Department of Labor FMLA form that states that on October 21, 2014, the Plaintiff's FMLA leave was denied; and a letter from Yamond informing the Plaintiff that as of October 30, 2014 her employment with Defendant RFSUNY was terminated. Each of the exhibits are referenced in the PAC.

The PAC alleges nine causes of action. The second, fourth and fifth causes of action in the PAC are identical to the second, third and fourth causes of action in the original complaint—retaliation under the FMLA and disability discrimination and failure to accommodate under the NYSHRL. The PAC differs from the original complaint in that it seeks to: modify the first cause of action under the FMLA from one of failure to provide leave to one of discrimination; add an additional cause of action under the FMLA alleging interference; add two additional causes of action under the NYSHRL for hostile work environment and age discrimination; add a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII") alleging a hostile work environment; and add a claim under 29 U.S.C. § 623, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("the ADEA") alleging age discrimination. The PAC is not clear in stating which causes of action are alleged against which defendants. However, only the hostile work environment claims under Title VII and the NYSHRL are alleged against "the defendants", (PAC at ¶¶ 83, 89), and so the Court will interpret that to mean that those two causes of action are brought against the proposed individual defendants and the Defendant RFSUNY. The Defendant RFSUNY assumed the same, (Def. Mem. at 5), and the Plaintiff did not take issue with that assumption in her reply memorandum.

B. Procedural History

The Plaintiff initiated this action against the Defendant RFSUNY on October 16, 2015 with the filing of a complaint. The Defendant RFSUNY answered the complaint on December 11, 2015. The parties held an initial conference before Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke on January 22, 2016, and the end date for all fact discovery...