Castiblanco v. Am. Airlines, 17-cv-5639(KAM)(RER)

JULIA I. CASTIBLANCO, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Defendant.

17-cv-5639(KAM)(RER)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

September 29, 2019

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

KIYO A. MATSUMOTO, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Julia Castiblanco ("Plaintiff") is a former Fleet Service Clerk who worked for Defendant American Airlines ("Defendant"). Plaintiff filed the instant action on September 27, 2017, alleging that Defendant discriminated against her on the basis of her age and disability and failed to provide a reasonable accommodation for her disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. ("ADA"), the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y, Exec. L. §§ 290 et seq. ("NYSHRL"), and the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8-101 et seq. ("NYCHRL").

Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff's amended complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the basis that Plaintiff's claims are time-barred because Plaintiff did not file them within the applicable limitations period. For the reasons set forth below, the Court agrees with Defendant and dismisses Plaintiff's claims, with leave to amend to state a timely claim for discrimination in accordance with this Memorandum and Order.

BACKGROUND¹

I. The Parties

Plaintiff Julia Castiblanco (born August 16, 1956) is a sixty-three-year-old woman residing in Queens, New York. (Am. Compl. ¶ 9.) Defendant American Airlines is a major airline based in Fort Worth, Texas. (Id. ¶ 11.) Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Fleet Service Clerk for almost twenty years. (See id. ¶ 19.)

The parties' relationship began in July 1993, when Plaintiff was hired by Trans World Airlines ("TWA"), which later merged with Defendant. (Id. ¶ 19.) On April 4, 2001, following the merger, Defendant assigned Plaintiff to work as a Fleet Service Clerk at Pittsburgh International Airport in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. (Id. ¶ 20.)

The responsibilities of a Fleet Service Clerk included assignments in both "ramp service" and "fleet service" (id. ¶ 24), with specific tasks including loading and unloading cargofrom flights, de-icing planes, and prepping cabins for departure (id. ¶ 21). Plaintiff remained in this position throughout her employment with Defendant. (Id. ¶ 24.)

II. Plaintiff's Treatment & Transfer to JFK

In June 2004, Plaintiff was diagnosed with breast cancer. (Id. ¶ 27.) Plaintiff's treatment required her to undergo a double mastectomy, in which her lymph nodes were removed. (Id.) Due to the effects of this procedure, Plaintiff's doctor recommended that she return to work with a medical restriction limiting her lifting to no more than twenty pounds. (Id.)

In December 2005, Plaintiff returned from her medical leave. (Id. ¶ 33.) Rather than returning to Pittsburgh, however, Defendant reassigned Plaintiff to LaGuardia Airport in Queens, New York. (See id. ¶ 22.) Plaintiff provided Defendant with a letter from her oncologist regarding the foregoing medical restriction. (Id. ¶ 33.) The manager of the Fleet/Ramp Service at LaGuardia consequently allowed Plaintiff to work in the cabin service, with lighter loads. (Id. ¶ 34.)

In September 2006, Defendant reassigned Plaintiff from LaGuardia to John F. Kennedy International Airport ("JFK"), also located in Queens, New York. (Id. ¶ 23.) Defendant kept Plaintiff in her role as a Fleet Service Clerk. (See id.) Inher new posting, Plaintiff was once again required to work in ramp service and lift heavy baggage. (See id.)

III. Plaintiff's First Medical Leave and Subsequent Transition to Part-Time Employment

Plaintiff alleges that, at JFK, she "became a target of management wherein she was meant to endure an environment rife with constant ridicule and intense scrutiny by the managerial staff." (See id. ¶ 42.) Plaintiff describes several such incidents of alleged workplace harassment in her amended complaint, all of which occurred in 2008.

In April 2008, Anthony Gallo ("Gallo"), a Ramp Manager (see id. ¶ 38), began yelling at Plaintiff in front of her co-workers (id. ¶ 43). Plaintiff does not describe the impetus for this interaction. She does, however, note that Gallo proceeded to tell her that she should "find a new workstation" and that "he didn't want to see her there [presumably, on ramp service,] because of her medical restrictions." (Id.)

Plaintiff describes another undated incident involving Gallo. (Id. ¶ 41.) Gallo reportedly informed Plaintiff that she could not wear sneakers while working. (Id.) Plaintiff, however, noticed that several other employees were wearing sneakers but were not reprimanded. (Id.)

Gallo later referred Plaintiff to a Senior Specialist in the Human Resources Department ("HR"), Tasha Brown ("Brown"),for reassignment. (Id. ¶ 44.) Gallo reportedly "did not want [Plaintiff] there," presumably, working under his direction. (Id.) Plaintiff spoke with her union, but the union did not act or follow up on her behalf. (Id.) Brown subsequently offered Plaintiff the option to work part-time or, alternatively, to be placed on a sick leave of absence once all of Plaintiff's sick time and vacation time was exhausted. (Id.)

On September 11, 2008, Gallo ordered another manager to retrieve Plaintiff's company identification and escort her out of the building. (Id. ¶ 38.) Plaintiff proceeded to the training office, where she spoke with Mike Melbrook (a Fleet Service Clerk), George Crozier ("Crozier") (another Fleet Service Clerk), and John Quinn (a union representative). (Id.) All three recommended that Plaintiff accept an offer to work part-time in the cabin service. (Id.) At the end of the day, Plaintiff was unable to use her company ID to punch out. (Id.)

On September 12, 2008, Plaintiff attended a hearing, which appears to have been with her union. (Id. ¶ 39.) At this hearing, Plaintiff's union similarly recommended that Plaintiff accept a part-time position with Defendant due to her medical restriction. (Id.) Plaintiff accepted this recommendation, given her fear that she would lose her job and corresponding medical benefits. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that another employee with an unspecified medical restriction was permittedto work full-time "without fear of harassment or loss of job." (Id. ¶ 40.)

IV. Plaintiff's Second Medical Leave and Subsequent Failure to Accommodate and/or Termination

In April 2013, Plaintiff underwent a bunionectomy and took another medical leave. (Id. ¶¶ 29, 47.) Plaintiff's leave was scheduled to last until April 2014. (Id. ¶ 50.) During this leave, Crozier (who, as noted above, was another Fleet Service Clerk) suggested to Plaintiff that she "retire," as the "job was not for her." (Id. ¶ 47.) Crozier told Plaintiff that Defendant would not be able to accommodate her and that she should consider retiring. (Id. ¶ 49.)

During Plaintiff's leave of absence, Brown (a Senior Specialist in HR) also blocked Plaintiff from participating in Defendant's work assignment "bidding process" - through which employees would bid to work in areas of their choosing - due to her prior medical restriction, which pre-dated her bunionectomy. (Id. ¶ 48.) This allegation appears to be a reference to Plaintiff's initial lifting restriction, which limited her to lifting no more than twenty points.

In September 2013, Plaintiff attempted to return to work. (See id. ¶ 51.) On September 9, 2013, Plaintiff reported to Defendant to drop off medical clearance forms to facilitate her return. (See id.) On September 13, 2013, Plaintiff placeda call to Defendant to inquire about her start time for September 16, 2013. (Id. ¶ 52.) Plaintiff was referred to Lisa Arthur ("Arthur"), a manager, to discuss the matter further. (Id.) Arthur informed Plaintiff that she could not return to work, due to her medical restrictions. (Id.) Arthur also stated to Plaintiff that she "was not aware of medical restrictions and could not locate them in Plaintiff's file." (Id.) The amended complaint does not attempt to further explain or clarify these apparently incongruous statements.

In 2014, Plaintiff returned to work for a brief period of time. (See id. ¶ 35.) There is some ambiguity as to the exact date this occurred. The amended complaint states that Plaintiff returned "in or about June 2014." (Id.) Plaintiff's Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"),² on the other hand, provides far more detail. (See generally ECF No. 40-1, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Intake Questionnaire.)

According to the EEOC charge, Defendant allowed Plaintiff to return to work "for 45 days[,] from April 2014 to May 2014." (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff "agreed that within the 45 days[,] [she] would see [her] oncologist and have an examinationto see if [her] medical restriction would be lifted." (Id.) But "[p]rior to having the chance to [meet with her oncologist], [Plaintiff] was told not to come back [to work]." (Id.) According to Plaintiff, she "was not given a reason as to why" Defendant would not allow her to continue working. (Id.) Defendant "just told [her that she] ran out of time to submit [her] doctor's evaluation. . . . [T]he manager just did not allow [her] to continue to work[,] even though [the manager had previously] agreed to let [Plaintiff] work for 45 days." (Id.)

"After being out of work and contacting several people" (id. at 5), Plaintiff spoke with Tanya Kelly ("Kelly"), an Analyst in the Accommodations Department, to request reasonable accommodations (Am. Compl. ¶ 35). Kelly informed Plaintiff that she would try to find Plaintiff another position with Defendant that would be more accommodating to Plaintiff's disability. (Id.) Plaintiff, however, received no response until she mentioned the possibility of filing a complaint. (Id. ¶ 36.) Kelly then informed Plaintiff that there were no available accommodating positions at JFK. (Id.) Plaintiff does not identify when these accommodation conversations took place, but she...