Weekes v. Jetblue Airways Corp.
| Decision Date | 16 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | 21-CV-1965 (MKB) |
| Parties | ROY WEEKES, Plaintiff, v. JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION, FRANK AYALA and WARREN GREEN, in their official and individual capacities, and JOHN DOE and JANE DOE, individually, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Plaintiff Roy Weekes commenced the above-captioned action on November 24, 2020, against JetBlue Airways Corporation (“JetBlue”), Frank Ayala and Warren Green in their official and individual capacities, and John and Jane Doe individually, in New York State Supreme Court, Kings County, alleging claims of discrimination, retaliation failure to provide reasonable accommodations, and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Summons & Compl., annexed to Notice of Removal as Ex. A, Docket Entry No. 1-1.) JetBlue, Ayala, and Green removed the action to the Eastern District of New York on April 12, 2021. (Notice of Removal, Docket Entry No. 1.) On July 9, 2021 Plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging that Defendants discriminated and retaliated against him based on his age race, gender, and disability and failed to provide reasonable accommodations in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”); the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (“ADA”); the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (“ADEA”)[1]; the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 290 et seq. (“NYSHRL”); and the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-101 et seq. (“NYCHRL”). ( Plaintiff also brings aiding and abetting claims under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL, interference claims under the NYCHRL, and state law claims of negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress (“NIED” and “IIED,” respectively). (Id. ¶¶ 228-31, 246-53, 278-80.)
Defendants move to dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Plaintiff opposes the motion.[2] For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants' motion.
Plaintiff is an African-American male who is over sixty years old and has suffered from asthma for over thirty years.[3] (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 40-43.) On or about October 9, 2007, Plaintiff was hired by JetBlue as a Grounds Operations employee. (Id. ¶ 44.) Plaintiff loaded and offloaded bags and luggage onto and off aircraft, worked in the “bag room,” and performed “lavatory and water services.” (Id. ¶¶ 44-45.) Plaintiff was recognized by JetBlue for his work and was awarded one of JetBlue's “Lift Awards” for his “exceptional” work performance in 2017, 2018, and 2019. (Id. ¶ 49.) Plaintiff “readily assisted other employees and volunteered for duties and responsibilities requested by some of his supervisors and managers.” (Id. ¶ 50.) He never received any warnings or suspensions. (Id.)
JetBlue is “the seventh largest airline in the United States by passengers carried.” (Id. ¶ 11.) It operates over 1,000 flights daily and serves 100 domestic and international destinations in the United States, Mexico, the Caribbean, Central America, and South America. (Id.) JetBlue's principal place of business is in Long Island City, New York. (Id. ¶ 10.) Ayala was a manager at JetBlue with managerial and/or supervisory responsibilities over Plaintiff during all relevant times. (Id. ¶¶ 18-22, 24-26.) Ayala worked as a Manager for Drug & Alcohol Compliance. (Id. ¶ 23.) Green was the Manager of Ground Operations at JetBlue with managerial and/or supervisory responsibilities over Plaintiff during all relevant times. (Id. ¶¶ 27-35.)
On October 15, 2019, Plaintiff was working in the bag room handling bags on Belt #4. (Id. ¶ 52.) At approximately 10 PM, as Plaintiff was driving out of the bag room to deliver bags to the aircraft, one of the bag doors malfunctioned on Belt #4. (Id. ¶ 53.) The door to the bag room had been malfunctioning for weeks and Plaintiff did not cause the accident. (Id. ¶ 54.) Plaintiff believes that JetBlue was aware of the malfunctioning door but did not take steps to properly fix it. (Id.) Plaintiff immediately reported the incident to Loudes Torres, JetBlue's Supervisor of Ground Operations. (Id. ¶ 55.)
At approximately 10:30 PM, Harold Pettiton, JetBlue's Supervisor of Safety, met with Plaintiff and took him to his office. (Id. ¶ 56.) Pettiton informed Plaintiff that in compliance with JetBlue's drug testing policies and procedures, Plaintiff had to take a drug test and Pettiton had to call someone to administer the test. (Id. ¶¶ 57-58.) Plaintiff contends that he was “not the subject of a random drug test” and that his drug test should have been conducted in accordance with the post-accident regulations, policies, and procedures maintained by JetBlue and mandated by the United States Department of Transportation (the “DOT”). (Id. ¶¶ 59-60.) Plaintiff informed Pettiton that he did not drink any alcohol or use any drugs and that the door for the bag room “simply malfunctioned.” (Id. ¶ 63.)
At approximately 11:15 PM, Joyce Lall, an “employee, contractor, independent contractor, and/or agent of JetBlue” arrived to perform the drug test. (Id. ¶¶ 64-65.) Lall requested that Plaintiff take a “breathalyzer” test. (Id. ¶ 68.) Plaintiff fully complied but had difficulty blowing into the breathalyzer because he was asthmatic and suffering from severe nasal and sinus polyps. (Id. ¶¶ 69-72.) Plaintiff informed Lall that he was having difficulty breathing and was scheduled to have surgery the following day, October 16, 2019. (Id. ¶ 71.) Plaintiff then told Lall that his chest was tightening and asked whether there was another way that he could take the test, since JetBlue's and DOT's drug testing policies allow alcohol tests to be performed by either saliva or breath. (Id. ¶¶ 74-75.) Lall observed Plaintiff's “physical distress” while taking the breathalyzer test. (Id. ¶ 76.) Lall called Ayala, who was the Manager for Drug & Alcohol Compliance, and left the room to speak with Ayala in private for about three to five minutes. (Id. ¶¶ 77-78.) Lall then returned to the room and told Plaintiff that Ayala wished to speak with him. (Id.)
Plaintiff informed Ayala that he did not use any alcohol or illegal drugs, that he was asthmatic, and that he “was coughing, having difficulty breathing, and his chest was tightening.” (Id. ¶¶ 79-80.) Plaintiff asked Ayala whether he could take the breathalyzer test another way.
(Id. ¶ 81.) He also informed Ayala that he was scheduled to have surgery the next day.[4] (Id.) Ayala “completely and summarily refused to discuss . . . any other methods of testing and dismissively told Plaintiff” that if he could not blow into the breathalyzer, they would “just have to part ways.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that Ayala treated him in a “dismissive and hostile manner” and “refused to engage Plaintiff in any dialogue regarding the existence of an alternative form of testing.” (Id. ¶¶ 82-83.)
Lall performed the test on Plaintiff twice, but due to Plaintiff's asthma, he had difficulty blowing enough air into the breathalyzer. (Id. ¶ 84.) Lall called Ayala again and left the room for five minutes. (Id. ¶ 85.) She then returned to the room. (Id.) Ayala informed Lall that she had to administer the breathalyzer test three times. (Id. ¶ 86.) Plaintiff asked Lall if he could take the test in another way but she stated that she “only had the equipment for the breathalyzer” and that “he had only one more chance to pass the test.” (Id. ¶ 87.) Plaintiff had difficulty blowing enough air into the breathalyzer for the third test. (Id. ¶ 88.) Defendants did not “document or observe any signs of intoxication such as slurred speech.” (Id. ¶ 176.)
After Plaintiff took the breathalyzer test three times, Lall requested that Plaintiff take a urine test, which came back negative. (Id. ¶¶ 89-90.) Despite this, Ayala immediately suspended Plaintiff and told him that he should not report back to work until further notice. (Id. ¶¶ 91-92.) Ayala informed Plaintiff that he would have to take a “shy lung” examination and that he would contact Plaintiff with information on where and when to take the shy lung examination. (Id. ¶ 93.)
On October 15, 2019, while turning in his employment credentials, Plaintiff was told by other supervisors that “they never heard of an employee being terminated with a negative ‘pee' result.” (Id. ¶ 189.)
Plaintiff underwent outpatient surgery on October 16, 2019 for severe nasal and sinus polyps. (Id. ¶¶ 94, 110.) On or about October 22, 2019, Ayala told Plaintiff to make an appointment at the Concentra Newark New Jersey clinic (the “Clinic”) for a shy lung exam. (Id. ¶ 95.) “Upon information and belief,” the Clinic conducts alcohol and drug testing for JetBlue, has a contract or agreement to administer such testing for JetBlue, conducts other medical examinations of JetBlue employees for JetBlue, and has a contract or agreement to “provide medical care or perform medical examinations or medical reviews of JetBlue employees for JetBlue.” (Id. ¶¶ 99-102.) Plaintiff explained that he was recovering from surgery and asked whether he could attend a testing facility or doctor's office closer to home. (Id. ¶ 96.) Ayala refused and directed Plaintiff to visit the Clinic, “which was in another state over two . . . hours away” and which required him to take two trains and a bus. (Id. ¶ 97.)
On October 24, 2017, Plaintiff went to the Clinic but was told upon arriving that JetBlue had not...
To continue reading
Request your trial