De Figueroa v. State, 17-CV-436 (PKC) (LB)

• Decision Date: 05 September 2019
• Docket Number: 17-CV-436 (PKC) (LB)
• Citation: 403 F.Supp.3d 133
• Parties: Desiree DE FIGUEROA, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK State, State University of New York at Stony Brook, John Peter Gergen in his official and individual capacities, Director, Undergraduate Biology, and Lynn Johnson in her official and individual capacities, Vice President, Human Resource Services, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

403 F.Supp.3d 133

Desiree DE FIGUEROA, Plaintiff,

v.NEW YORK State, State University of New York at Stony Brook, John Peter Gergen in his official and individual capacities, Director, Undergraduate Biology, and Lynn Johnson in her official and individual capacities, Vice President, Human Resource Services, Defendants.

17-CV-436 (PKC) (LB)

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

Signed September 5, 2019

Joshua S. Paster, Hunton & Williams LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff.

Daniel Scott Hallak, Patricia M. Hingerton, Office of the New York State Attorney General, Hauppauge, NY, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

PAMELA K. CHEN, United States District Judge:

On January 26, 2017, Plaintiff Desiree De Figueroa ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se , initiated this employment discrimination action against New York State, the State University of New York at Stony Brook (the "University"), and two employees of the University—Undergraduate Biology Director John Peter Gergen ("Gergen") and Human Resources Director Lynn Johnson ("Johnson") (the "Individual Defendants") (together with New York State and the University, "Defendants"). Plaintiff alleges violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq. ("FMLA"), the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. ("ADA"), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, Section 1983 of the Title 42 of the United States Code, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (" § 1983"), and the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 290 et seq.¹ (See Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), Dkt. 15, at 3.) Currently before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint in full. (See Defendants' Renewed Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 32; see also SAC, Dkt. 15.) For the reasons stated herein, Defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part.

BACKGROUND

I. Factual Allegations²

Plaintiff has worked in the University's Undergraduate Biology program for over 20 years, and she has held the title of Curator-SL3 since approximately 2006. (SAC, Dkt. 15, ¶ 3.) As a Curator-SL3, Plaintiff is responsible for, inter alia , acquiring supplies and equipment for instructional facilities, preparing guidelines for instructional exercises, collecting and maintaining live materials, mentoring and training staff and students, supervising student assistants working in the undergraduate biology laboratories, and operating the labs when the Curator is absent. (Id. ) Plaintiff was granted tenured status in 2008. (Id. )

In or around 1992, Plaintiff was diagnosed with Crohn's disease

, a chronic inflammatory bowel disease that is characterized by inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract. (Id. ¶ 5.) Like many individuals suffering from Crohn's disease, Plaintiff experiences "flare-ups" every few months, which may last from one day up to a few weeks. (Id. ) When Plaintiff experiences a flare-up, she is unable to work or engage in basic life activities. (Id. ) This action stems from various actions allegedly taken by the University, Gergen, and Johnson between March 2011 and June 2017 in response to Plaintiff's requests for leave to manage her condition.

A. Plaintiff's Requests for FMLA Leave

In January 2007, March 2011, July 2011, and February 2012, Plaintiff requested leave under the FMLA in order to conduct "self-care," seek medical treatment, and rest as necessary to resolve the symptoms of her Crohn's disease

. (Id. ) On those occasions, the University's Human Resources Department ("HR"), of which Defendant Johnson is the Director (id. ¶ 1), granted Plaintiff's requests for FMLA leave (id. ¶ 5.) Beginning in 2011, however, Gergen began to express his belief that employees within the Undergraduate Biology program should not take FMLA leave. (Id. ¶ 6.) He became openly hostile to Plaintiff and other employees who requested FMLA leave, stating that they were "screwing the department." (Id. ¶ 7.) And at a senior staff meeting on March 16, 2011, Gergen spoke disparagingly about employees who had taken FMLA leave. (Id. ¶ 8.) On the same day, Plaintiff requested that HR remind staff in the Undergraduate Biology program that FMLA and medical information should be kept confidential. (Id. ¶ 9.)

Sometime later, Gergen found out that Plaintiff had informed a colleague about the process for applying for FMLA leave. (Id. ¶ 10.) Gergen subsequently assigned tasks to Plaintiff that were beyond the responsibilities of her position. (Id. ) In particular, on August 28, 2012, Gergen ordered Plaintiff to help distribute over 1,300 books throughout their department. (Id. ¶ 11.) Plaintiff did not comply with this directive, as she believed book distribution was not one of her job responsibilities. (Id. ) When Gergen sent a "harassing" email demanding an explanation for her failure to distribute the books, Plaintiff informed Johnson and the Dean of the University about Gergen's email. (Id. )

Around March 26, 2013, Plaintiff filed a request for FMLA leave with HR. ( Id. ¶ 12.) Because Gergen continued to speak disparagingly at senior staff meetings about employees who were taking FMLA leave, Plaintiff again requested that Johnson, as the head of HR, remind Undergraduate Biology staff that employees' FMLA information should be kept confidential. (Id. ) On April 3, 2013, HR denied Plaintiff's FMLA request, and she was accused of forging her FMLA leave request form. (Id. ¶ 14.) On April 12, 2013, Plaintiff was hospitalized for four days for treatment of a flare-up of her Crohn's disease

. (Id. ¶ 15.) On April 24, 2013, Plaintiff met with her doctor in order to discuss her employer's accusation that she had forged her FMLA request form. (Id. ¶ 16.) Plaintiff's doctor provided written documentation to HR confirming that he had overseen Plaintiff's completion of the leave request form and had, in fact, personally signed the form. (Id. ¶ 17.) Defendants granted Plaintiff FMLA leave post hoc based on her re-submitted request. (SAC, Dkt. 15, ¶¶ 17–18; Pl.'s Opp., Dkt. 26, at 13.)

On September 20, 2013, Plaintiff met directly with Gergen. (SAC, Dkt. 15, ¶ 19.) During this meeting, Gergen accused Plaintiff of failing to provide a faculty member with certain materials that Plaintiff had used to teach a course in previous semesters. (Id. ) Plaintiff alleges that her job duties did not include providing faculty with academic teaching materials, and Gergen had not previously instructed Plaintiff to do so. (Id. ¶ 20.) Nevertheless, Gergen verbally accosted Plaintiff, screaming "I want your resignation" in front of faculty, other staff, and students. (Id. ¶ 21.) Immediately after this meeting, Plaintiff filed a complaint with HR and sought Johnson's assistance in processing the complaint. (Id. ¶ 22.) Johnson and HR did not follow up on Plaintiff's complaint. (Id. ¶¶ 22–24.)

On February 11, 2015, Plaintiff's doctor prepared documentation for another FMLA leave request. (Id. ¶ 25.) Plaintiff never submitted this request, however, because she feared harassment and retaliation based on her experiences with Gergen and Johnson following her March 2013 request for FMLA leave. (Id. ¶ 26.) Plaintiff continues to fear that she will face harassment and retaliation if she requests FMLA leave. (Id. ¶ 28.)

B. Plaintiff's Application for a Promotion

On March 4, 2015, Plaintiff applied for the position of Assistant Director of the Undergraduate Biology program. (Id. ¶ 29.) This position is designated as an "SL-4" position, which allows the holder to obtain a higher salary, better opportunities within the University, and more professional contacts than Plaintiff's current position. (Id. ¶ 30.)

Plaintiff was well qualified for the Assistant Director position. At the time she applied, Plaintiff had worked at the University for over 20 years and had served as a Curator at the SL3 level since 2006. (Id. ¶ 32.) As a Curator-SL3, Plaintiff had managerial experience, held a New York State credit card, and had already received most of the training and computer access required for the Assistant Director position. (Id. ¶¶ 33–36.) Additionally, Plaintiff's past performance reviews were outstanding, and she had already achieved tenured status. (Id. ¶ 32.)

Despite Plaintiff's excellent qualifications, she was never seriously considered for the Assistant Director position. Plaintiff received a first-round interview, but only two of the three members of the search committee attended her interview. (Id. ¶ 39.) Notably, both members in attendance for Plaintiff's interview were Gergen's subordinates. (Id. ) All other first-round interviews were conducted with all three members of the search committee present. (Id. ¶ 40.) Following this interview, Plaintiff was not invited to a second-round interview. (Id. ¶ 41.) While other applicants received timely rejection letters, Plaintiff was forced to specifically request a formal rejection letter. (Id. ¶ 43.)

Ultimately, on June 17, 2015, Plaintiff was informed via a departmental email from Gergen that Nancy Black had been hired for the Assistant Director position. (Id. ¶ 42.) Prior to this promotion, Black held a laboratory position at the SL2 level and lacked managerial experience and relevant training. (Id. ¶¶ 32–36.) In fact, Plaintiff had interviewed, supervised, and evaluated Black until 2010. (Id. ¶ 35.) Plaintiff believes that she was never seriously considered for the Assistant Director position because Gergen manipulated the hiring process to ensure that Black was chosen for promotion instead of Plaintiff and to retaliate against Plaintiff for taking FMLA leave related to her Crohn's disease

.³ (Id. ¶¶ 37, 44.)

C. Changes to Plaintiff's Work Requirements and Performance Evaluation

In July 2014, Gergen began to assign Plaintiff more complex work than her co-workers and supervisor, expanding Plaintiff's duties and generally making her job more difficult. (Id. ¶¶ 45, 56.) On July 30, 2014, Gergen informed Plaintiff that a new course, Biology 207, was being added to...