Stinnett v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.

• Decision Date: 30 September 2017
• Docket Number: 16–CV–04554 (DLI)(LB)
• Citation: 278 F.Supp.3d 599
• Parties: Venus STINNETT, Plaintiff, v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., and Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

278 F.Supp.3d 599

Venus STINNETT, Plaintiff,

v.DELTA AIR LINES, INC., and Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc., Defendants.

16–CV–04554 (DLI)(LB)

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

Signed September 30, 2017

John C. Luke, Jr., Derek Smith Law Group, PLLC, New York, NY, for Plaintiff.

Ira Gregg Rosenstein, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, John Gizunterman, Furman Kornfeld & Brennan LLP, New York, NY, D. Faye Caldwell, Caldwell Everson PLLC, Houston, TX, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

DORA L. IRIZARRY, Chief U.S. District Judge:

On August 15, 2016, Plaintiff Venus Stinnett ("Plaintiff") filed the instant action against her former employer, Delta Air Lines, Inc. ("Delta"), and Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc. ("Quest"), a drug testing company, (collectively, "Defendants"). (See generally , Complaint ("Compl."), Dkt. Entry No. 1.) On January 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. (See Amended Complaint ("Am. Compl."), Dkt. Entry No. 22.) In her Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Delta discriminated against her on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. , the N.Y. Exec. Law ("NYSHRL") §§ 296 et seq. , and the N.Y.C. Admin. Code ("NYCHRL") §§ 8–107 et seq. (See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 98–99, 104–105, 114–115.) Plaintiff also asserts that Delta discriminated against her on the basis of her disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), as amended 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112 et seq. , NYSHRL, and NYCHRL. (See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 132–133, 104–105, 114–115). Finally, Plaintiff alleges retaliation and hostile work environment in violation of Title VII, the ADA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL, as well as common law negligence. (See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 1, 101–02, 135–36, 108–09, 118–19, 137–43.)

Pursuant to Rule 12 (b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint in its entirety for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (See Delta's Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss ("Delta's Mem."), Dkt. Entry No. 17; Quest's Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss ("Quest's Mem."), Dkt. Entry No. 20.) Plaintiff opposed the Motion. (See Pl.'s Mem. in Opp'n to Mot. to Dismiss ("Pl.'s Opp'n), Dkt. Entry No. 25.) For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motions to dismiss are granted and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's NYSHRL, NYCHRL, and negligence claims.

BACKGROUND ¹

Plaintiff is a female who was employed by Delta as a flight attendant for approximately seven years. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 8, 12, 82.) Plaintiff began her employment around May 2007 and was terminated by a letter dated June 19, 2014. (Id. ¶ 82.)

Over the course of her employment, Plaintiff allegedly suffered from multiple disabilities, including Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome

, which rendered her infertile and unable to take a pregnancy to term, and asthma. (Id. ¶¶ 21–23.) Because of her infertility, Plaintiff suffered several miscarriages, and, in 2007, she underwent fertility treatments to facilitate pregnancy. (Id. ¶¶ 17–18.) She was prescribed amoxicillin as a part of her infertility treatment plan. (Id. ¶ 19.) Plaintiff alleges that she informed Delta of her disabilities and the medications she was taking as part of her fertility treatment plan and notified Delta every time she was prescribed a new medication.² (Id. ¶¶ 20, 24, 29–30.)

In addition, she alleges that Delta threatened her with suspension for taking approved leave under Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") in 2007. (Id. ¶¶ 17, 25–26.)

The incident that gives rise to this suit occurred on or about April 23, 2014 when Plaintiff disembarked at John F. Kennedy airport ("JFK") and Delta directed her to take an alcohol and drug test. (Id. ¶¶ 44, 49.) Plaintiff tested positive for cocaine and alcohol. (Id. ¶ 54.) Plaintiff alleges two reasons for her positive drug test: (1) she was prescribed (and taking) Cocaine HCL 4% to treat her "severe nosebleed[s]" (Id. ¶ 57.); and (2) she was prescribed (and taking) amoxicillin

, which can generate a false positive for cocaine. (Id. ¶ 58.) As for the positive alcohol result, Plaintiff contends that this "must have been a laboratory error" because she was "not under the influence of ... alcohol," (Id. ¶¶ 56, 52.), though she admits to consuming alcohol the night prior to her flight back to JFK (Id. ¶ 39.).

Subsequent to the positive drug and alcohol test, Plaintiff contends that Delta informed her that she would be reinstated if she attended a rehabilitation program.

(Id. ¶ 69.) Plaintiff successfully completed a rehabilitation program, but Delta did not reinstate her. (Id. ¶¶ 69–70, 73–74.) Plaintiff claims that Delta reinstated several employees after they completed the rehabilitation program, including six male flight attendants who "were known abusers of drugs and alcohol." (Id. ¶¶ 75–77.)

Plaintiff was notified of her employment termination by letter dated June 19, 2014. (Id. ¶ 82.) Her termination led her to file a charge of discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commissions ("EEOC") on March 5, 2015. (Id. ¶ 3). Plaintiff received a right to sue letter from the EEOC dated May 17, 2016, and timely commenced the instant action on August 15, 2016. (Id. ¶¶ 4–6.)

On November 22, 2016, Defendants moved separately to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (See generally , Delta's Mem; Quest's Mem.) Rather than oppose Defendants' motions, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. Defendants asked the Court to construe their original motions as motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Delta contends that dismissal is warranted because Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to state a claim for discrimination on the basis of sex and disability, retaliation, hostile work environment, or negligence. (Delta's Mem. at 6–9.) Quest contends that dismissal is warranted because it was not Plaintiff's employer and was unaware of Plaintiff's identity, gender, or alleged conditions until she filed her Complaint. (Quest's Mem. at 13–15.)

LEGAL STANDARD

Under Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, pleadings must contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Pleadings are to give the defendant "fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Dura Pharms., Inc. v. Broudo , 544 U.S. 336, 346, 125 S.Ct. 1627, 161 L.Ed.2d 577 (2005) (quoting Conley v. Gibson , 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957), overruled in part on other grounds by Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ). "The pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). "A pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’ " Id. (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ).

Under Rule 12(b)(6), a defendant may move, in lieu of an answer, for dismissal of a complaint for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." To resolve such a motion, courts "must accept as true all [factual] allegations contained in a complaint," but need not accept "legal conclusions." Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937. For this reason, "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice" to insulate a claim against dismissal. Id. "[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ " Id. (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). Courts may only consider the complaint itself, documents that are attached to or referenced in the complaint, documents that the plaintiff relied on in bringing suit and that are either in the plaintiff's possession or that the plaintiff knew of when bringing suit, and matters of which judicial notice may be taken. See, e.g. , Roth v. Jennings , 489 F.3d 499, 509 (2d Cir. 2007).

I. The Parties' Exhibits

As an initial matter, the parties include numerous exhibits in their motion papers. When material outside the complaint is "presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment ... and all parties must be given a reasonable opportunity to present all the material that is pertinent to the motion." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d). For the purposes of this rule, however, the complaint is deemed to include writings and documents attached to the complaint, referenced in the complaint, or integral to the complaint. See Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc. , 282 F.3d 147, 152–153 (2d Cir. 2002) ; Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c). A document is "integral" to the complaint where "the complaint relies heavily upon its terms and effects." Chambers , 282 F.3d at 153 (citations omitted). "A plaintiff's reliance on the terms and effect of a document in drafting the complaint is a necessary prerequisite to the court's consideration of the document on a dismissal motion; mere notice or possession is not enough." Id. (emphasis in original). The court may also consider "matters of which judicial notice may be taken." Id. (quoting Brass v. Am. Film Techs., Inc. , 987 F.2d 142, 150 (2d Cir.1993) ); Fed. R. Evid. § 201(b). Judicial notice may be taken when "a fact ... is not subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned." Fed. R. Evid. § 201(b).

"Plaintiffs are harmed when material outside the complaint is considered on a motion to dismiss because they lac...