Henderson v. GEICO

1

EVA HENDERSON, Plaintiff, v. GEICO, CHRISTOPHER KORKIDIS, and ERIN STEIN, Defendants.

No. 22-CV-03513 (HG)

United States District Court, E.D. New York

November 6, 2024

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

HECTOR GONZALEZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

BACKGROUND

Unless otherwise indicated, the following facts are undisputed. On December 6, 2010, Plaintiff began working for GEICO as a Personal Injury Protection (“PIP”) Examiner which is also known as a No-Fault Examiner. ECF No. 26-4 ¶¶ 1-2 (Plaintiff's Rule 56.1 Counterstatement). Plaintiff was supervised by non-party Nicole Mohan, whose supervisor was Defendant Erin Stein, who in turn reported to Defendant Christopher Korkidis. ECF No 26-4

Plaintiff Eva Henderson has brought this suit against Defendants Government Employees Insurance Company (“GEICO”)^[1], Christopher Korkidis, and Erin Stein alleging violations of Section 105(a)(1)-(2) of the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), Section 12112(a) of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) Section 296(1)(a), (h) of the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), and Section 623(a)(1) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). ECF No. 1 ¶ 1 (Complaint). Defendants have moved for summary judgment on all claims, see ECF No. 37-1 (Defendants' Motion), which Plaintiff opposes, see ECF No. 38-5 (Plaintiff's Opposition). For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion is granted.

¶¶ 7-14. In this role, Plaintiff oversaw claim files for medical injury claims sustained in car accidents. Id. ¶ 6. She provided customer service to the injured parties and ensured compliance items were met for handling paperwork and paying bills. Id. Plaintiff remained in this position until her termination on March 26, 2021. Id. ¶¶ 2, 47. The role was a non-exempt position, which meant that Plaintiff was scheduled to work no more than 40 hours per week. Id. ¶ 4. If Plaintiff worked beyond her scheduled hours, she was required to update her timesheet to reflect the time that she worked. Id. GEICO was required to pay Plaintiff overtime if her total hours exceeded 40 hours per week. Id.

At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, GEICO directed all non-essential employees to work from home. Id. ¶ 16. As a condition of working from home, all non-exempt employees were required to sign the Non-Exempt Temporary Work From Home Agreement (the “Agreement”). Id. ¶ 17. Plaintiff signed this Agreement on March 7, 2020. Id. Even after offices began to re-open, GEICO permitted non-exempt employees to continue to work remotely so long as the employees continued to abide by the Agreement. Id. ¶ 18. One of the conditions of the Agreement required that non-exempt employees not work outside of their scheduled hours without prior approval. Id. An employee in Plaintiff's department who was “on warning” was not permitted to work remotely. Id.

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, Plaintiff received one warning in September 2018 in relation to “unprofessional comments” made to a medical provider. ECF No. 23-4 (September 2018 GEICO Warning). Plaintiff was admonished that if she failed to meet the goals set forth in the warning, she could be subject to “further disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment.” Id. Throughout 2020, Ms. Mohan and Ms. Stein documented numerous instances of Plaintiff working outside of her scheduled hours and advised her that disregarding her scheduled hours might result in a warning or disciplinary action. ECF No. 23-5 at 2-7 (Mohan Write-Ups); ECF No. 23-9 at 2-5 (Stein Write-Ups).^[2] Plaintiff alleges that she worked beyond her scheduled hours due to taking on the work of “other examiners, repeated technical difficulties, unclear directives, and Defendants' expectations that Plaintiff respond to every single call and/or voicemail” before the end of her workday. ECF No. 26-4 ¶ 27. Plaintiff also alleges that she worked late one day due to a doctor's appointment that she was granted permission to attend under FMLA. Id. ¶ 23; see also ECF No. 23-7 (January 2021 Emails with Mohan and Henderson). Plaintiff further alleges that she was not informed that she could not perform certain tasks, such as completing her self-assessment, outside of her scheduled hours. ECF No. 26-4 ¶ 26.

On January 28, 2021, Plaintiff received a warning for working in excess of her scheduled hours. ECF No. 23-10 (January 2021 GEICO Warning). The warning documented numerous times during which Plaintiff worked late and was subsequently admonished for doing so. Id. Plaintiff was again advised that if she failed to meet the goals set forth in the warning, she could be subject to “further disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment.” Id. As a result of this warning, Plaintiff was no longer permitted to work from home and was required to return to work in the office so she could receive support in completing her work on a timely basis. ECF No. 23-3 at 74:12-76:21 (Stein Dep. Tr.). Plaintiff told Ms. Stein that she was “stunned” that she received a warning and asked if there was an alternative option to returning to work in the office because “[w]e are in the middle of a pandemic[,] schools have not reopened[,] [and she] ha[s] a minor at home.” ECF No. 23-9 at 3. Ms. Stein informed Plaintiff that measures had been taken “to provide a safe environment while in the building which are in line with the CDC guidelines.” Id. Ms. Stein further told Plaintiff that she could reach out to GEICO's disability carrier if Plaintiff wished to seek a medical accommodation. Id.

Over the next two weeks, before Plaintiff returned to the office, she had conversations with Mr. Korkidis, Ms. Stein, and Ms. Mohan about the warning, her work product, and returning to the office. ECF No. 23-5 at 8; ECF No. 23-9 at 2-4; ECF No. 23-11 (Korkidis Write-Up); ECF No. 23-12 (Korkidis Email to Henderson). Despite Plaintiff's objections, these individuals reiterated to her that the warning was appropriate, she should not work past her scheduled hours, and they would revisit Plaintiff's ability to work from home in six months. ECF No. 23-9 at 2-4; ECF No. 23-11; ECF No. 26-2 at 165:24-166:6 (Henderson Dep. Tr.). On February 5, 2021, Ms. Mohan had a conversation with Plaintiff about her “answer rate” and asked Plaintiff why she missed many calls in the previous five-day period. ECF No. 23-5 at 8. Plaintiff explained that she must have been “documenting”-presumably claims-or busy at the time the calls were missed. Id. Ms. Mohan advised Plaintiff on how to forward her phone while in a meeting or while she was away from her desk. Id. On February 15, 2021, Mr. Korkidis asked Plaintiff when she planned to return to the office. ECF No. 23-9 at 4; ECF No. 26-4 ¶ 35. Plaintiff indicated that she was going to complete and return a COVID-19 testing kit in advance of her return to the office. ECF No. 23-9 at 4; ECF No. 26-4 ¶ 35.

On February 23, 2021, Plaintiff met with non-party Rob Felice, the Regional Compliance Administrator in GEICO's Human Resources Department. ECF No. 26-4 ¶ 37. After the meeting, Plaintiff emailed Mr. Felice and claimed that other associates were staying five minutes past their scheduled end time. Id. Mr. Felice explained that warnings are not issued to employees after only one or two occurrences, but rather after a repeated pattern of conduct, like the conduct Plaintiff exhibited when she consistently worked past her scheduled hours. Id. On March 2, 2021, Ms. Stein and Mr. Felice met with Plaintiff regarding the warning. ECF No. 239 at 4-5. Plaintiff indicated that she felt she was being targeted and she wanted to be removed from Ms. Stein and Ms. Mohan's team. Id. Plaintiff told Ms. Stein that she would “reap what [she] sow[s].” Id. at 5; ECF No. 26-2 at 215:21-23; ECF No. 26-4 ¶ 39. On March 3, 2021, Plaintiff entered “inappropriate unrelated documentation” on a client's claim. ECF No. 23-9 at 5; ECF No. 26-4 ¶ 41. Specifically, Plaintiff noted, among other things, “takes us 24 hrs for details I advised sup in claim before 430 system issues all day it is noted,” “atlas went down all [sic] day,” “then my computer shut down 2 times,” and “i got kicked out 2 times and rebooted today . [sic] this was not a good day.” ECF No. 23-9 at 5.^[3]

The parties dispute whether Ms. Stein decided to have Plaintiff's employment reviewed on March 4, 2021, or on March 8, 2021. ECF No. 26-4 ¶ 42. Nevertheless, is it undisputed that on March 8, 2021, Ms. Stein advised Plaintiff that based on Plaintiff's comments in the meetings with hers supervisors “which were demeaning in nature, inappropriate and not professional,” and Plaintiff's inappropriate documentation on a client's claim file, GEICO was “reviewing [Ms. Stein's] recommendation that she be terminated,” and that Plaintiff could provide a statement by the end of the day. Id. ¶ 43. After the conversation, Plaintiff indicated to Ms. Stein that she was not feeling well and would be going home. Id. Plaintiff explained she believed it could be COVID-19 because she had been seated at a desk that was not at least six feet from another GEICO employee's desk. Id. Plaintiff then quarantined at home for ten days. Id. ¶ 45.

Shortly after Plaintiff began her quarantine period, she applied for leave under the FMLA from GEICO's short-term disability carrier, The Hartford, for a pre-existing foot injury. Id. ¶¶ 44-45; ECF No. 23-15 (The Hartford Letter). On March 11, 2021, The Hartford approved Plaintiff for Short Term Disability benefits from March 9, 2021, to March 19, 2021. ECF No. 26-4 ¶ 45; ECF No. 23-15. Plaintiff's leave overlapped with the time she was away from work because of her alleged COVID-19 exposure. ECF No 23-1 at 209:4-21 (Henderson Dep. Tr.). Plaintiff was expected to return to work on March 23, 2021. ECF No....