Wells v. Achievement Network
| Decision Date | 02 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | 18 Civ. 6588 (KPF) |
| Parties | SHARON WELLS, Plaintiff, v. THE ACHIEVEMENT NETWORK, TEIMOSA MARTIN, MELINDA SPOONER, and KIMBERLY COCKRELL Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Plaintiff Sharon Wells brings claims pursuant to the Family Medical Leave Act (the "FMLA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601 to 2654; the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 to 12117, 12131 to 12165, 12181 to 12189, 12201 to 12213; the New York State Human Rights Law (the "NYSHRL"), N.Y. Exec Law. §§ 290 to 297; and the New York City Human Rights Law (the "NYCHRL"), N.Y. Admin. Code §§ 8-101 to 8-131, against her former employer, The Achievement Network, Ltd. ("ANet"), and ANet employees Teimosa Martin, Melinda Spooner, and Kimberly Cockrell (the "Individual Defendants" and collectively with ANet, "Defendants"). Defendants now move, without opposition, for summary judgment against Plaintiff pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion is granted in full.
ANet is an educational not-for-profit organization that works alongside school leadership teams with the goal of improving results for students in underserved communities. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 1). Plaintiff Sharon Wells was hired by ANet in July 2015 for the position of Managing Director of its New York-New Jersey Network. (Id. at ¶ 17). She was subsequently elevated to Executive Director of ANet's Mid-Atlantic Region in mid-2017 (id. at ¶ 167), until her role was eliminated by ANet in June 2018 (id. at ¶ 223). During the period in whichPlaintiff was employed by ANet, she worked from ANet's New York City office. (Id. at ¶ 18).
Kimberly Cockrell is ANet's Chief Network Officer, and is responsible for overseeing service delivery to districts and schools across the country, as well as sales and growth cultivation throughout ANet. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 7). Melinda Spooner worked at ANet as Chief Talent and Equity Officer from 2016 to 2019, where she was responsible for overseeing ANet's Human Resources Department. (Id. at ¶ 8). Teimosa Martin is currently the Vice President of ANet's West Region, though she has held other roles at ANet in which she supervised Plaintiff, including as Executive Director of ANet's New Jersey-New York Network and as Vice President of ANet's Mid-Atlantic Region. (Id. at ¶¶ 9, 23-24, 35).
As relevant here, ANet permits qualified employees to take medical leaves of absence in accordance with the FMLA, pursuant to which certain covered employees are provided with up to 12 weeks of unpaid job-protected leave each year. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 14). ANet also permits medical leave under the ADA and applicable state law. (Id.). Additionally, ANet maintains a Leaves of Absence Policy that provides that ANet will endeavor to grant accommodations to employees who need leave, but cannot guarantee that all leave requests will be granted. (Id.). ANet's leave process, including its FMLA leave, is administered through a third-party vendor, Insperity PEO Services, L.P. ("Insperity"), whichis responsible for communicating with ANet employees regarding their eligibility for FMLA leave. (Id. at ¶¶ 15-16).
Prior to June 2015, ANet was organized into state-specific "networks," including separate networks for New York and New Jersey. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 20). Each network partnered only with schools and districts within its own state. (Id.). In June 2015, ANet combined the New York and New Jersey networks into a single network (the "NJ-NY Network") that partnered with approximately 76 schools in cities in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. (Id. at ¶¶ 21-22). In July 2015, Plaintiff was hired as Managing Director of the newly-formed NJ-NY Network, reporting directly to Defendant Martin, the Executive Director of the NJ-NY Network. (Id. at ¶¶ 23-24). As Managing Director, Plaintiff was responsible for supervising, both directly and indirectly, ANet's partnerships with approximately 30 in-network schools. (Id. at ¶¶ 25-26, 28).
As ANet continued to grow throughout 2015 and 2016, its state-specific network system evolved into a system of regional networks. (Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 31-32). As part of this restructuring, in Spring 2016, the NJ-NY Network expanded and was reorganized into the Mid-Atlantic Region. (Id. at ¶ 33). Both Plaintiff's and Martin's titles changed, with Plaintiff becoming Managing Director of the Mid-Atlantic Region, and Martin becoming Vice President of the Mid-Atlantic Region. (Id. at ¶¶ 34-35).
Martin was responsible for Plaintiff's annual performance reviews, which were conducted each June at the end of ANet's fiscal year. (Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 37,39, 41). In July 2016, Martin drafted and delivered Plaintiff's 2016 performance review, rating her overall performance for the 2015-2016 fiscal year as "Meeting Expectations." (Id. at ¶ 41). Martin noted that "communication and relationship building may be an opportunity for development" for Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶¶ 44-45).
In or around the fall of 2016, Plaintiff and Martin discussed that, with the expansion of the Mid-Atlantic Region, the work had become too much for them to manage without additional help. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 48). Martin began interviewing candidates for a Managing Director position for the Mid-Atlantic Region. (Id.). Martin expected that the additional Managing Director would take on responsibilities for ANet's partnerships with certain schools in the region. (Id. at ¶ 53). On November 21, 2016, ANet offered Gwendolyn Stephens the position. (Id. at ¶ 50). Though Martin had met Stephens professionally prior to her hiring (id. at ¶ 49), Plaintiff was also involved in the hiring decision (id. at ¶ 51). In particular, Plaintiff participated in Stephens's interview and was a member of the selection committee. (Id.). Stephens began working at ANet on January 3, 2017. (Id. at ¶ 50).
On December 15, 2016, Plaintiff was diagnosed with Stage IIB breast cancer. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 58). Plaintiff called Martin to inform her of the diagnosis and to explain that she would not be able to lead a scheduled meeting with a partner school later that week. (Id. at ¶¶ 54, 58). In response, Martin told Plaintiff to do what she needed to take care of herself, and asked that Plaintiffcall her back in two hours to walk her through the meeting materials so that Martin could lead the meeting in Plaintiff's absence. (Id. at ¶ 59). Plaintiff called Martin later that day, walked her through the presentation, and created a plan of action for the meeting. (Id. at ¶ 60).
Plaintiff sought information about the availability of medical leave at ANet, as the recommended treatment for her illness included chemotherapy, followed by a double mastectomy and radiation treatments. (Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 61, 64). On December 19, 2016, Plaintiff emailed ANet's Human Resources Manager to request information about the availability of leave under the FMLA. (Id. at ¶ 61). Plaintiff explained that she might need to take medical leave as she would be undergoing surgery the following month. (Id.). That week, Plaintiff spoke with the Human Resources Manager to discuss ANet's policies regarding leave, the process for requesting FMLA leave, the required paperwork that Plaintiff needed to complete, and Plaintiff's options, which included the decision to take intermittent or continuous leave. (Id. at ¶ 62).
On January 25, 2017, the week before beginning her first chemotherapy treatment, Plaintiff commenced a leave of absence that was expected to last through February 24, 2017. (Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 66, 75). Plaintiff's treatment plan involved chemotherapy treatments every three weeks over a 21-week period. (Id. at ¶¶ 63-64). Plaintiff hoped to return to work between chemotherapy treatments and to take intermittent leave throughout the duration of her treatments. (Id.). However, because Plaintiff's ability to return to work was dependent on her reaction to the chemotherapy, there was no certainty as towhether or when Plaintiff would return to work. (Id. at ¶ 65). Prior to Plaintiff's leave, Martin worked with her to develop a 21-week workplan (the "21-Week Plan") for Plaintiff's 21 weeks of chemotherapy treatment. (Id. at ¶¶ 67-68). Under the 21-Week Plan, Plaintiff anticipated that she would only work on certain days during the week, and that on those days, she would work remotely from home. (Id. at ¶ 69). During this time, Martin and Stephens both covered Plaintiff's workload, including handling check-ins with those coaches Plaintiff supervised. (Id. at ¶ 91).
On January 27, 2017, Plaintiff received leave paperwork from Insperity stating that she was not eligible for FMLA leave under ANet's policy because she did "not work and/or report to a site with 50 or employee [sic] employees within 75 miles." (Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 71-72).2 The paperwork encouraged Plaintiff to contact Insperity if their understanding of her eligibility was incorrect, or if Plaintiff had any questions. (Id. at ¶ 73). Plaintiff did not raise any questions about the letter to either ANet or Insperity. (Id. at ¶ 74; Pl. Dep. 172:2-25). Plaintiff received an additional letter from Insperity on February 16, 2017, enclosing a revised copy of her leave information. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 87). The paperwork appended to the letter reiterated that Plaintiff's leave had been designated a non-FMLA Leave of Absence, as Plaintiff did not work and/orreport to a work site with 50 or more employees within 75 miles. (Id. at ¶¶ 87-89).
Plaintiff's intermittent leave was converted to continuous leave in February 2017, during her first round of chemotherapy treatment, upon Plaintiff's submission of paperwork from her medical provider indicating that she would require such leave until the completion of her treatment. (Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 76-80...
To continue reading
Request your trial