Chauca v. Advantagecare Physicians, P.C., 1:18-cv-02516

Background

Plaintiff was a physical‑therapy aide at AdvantageCare Physicians (rotated between two facilities); she took FMLA leave for a work injury (2015) and later intermittent FMLA leave in June–August 2017 for her son.
Supervisor Tara Harrington sent emails (June 6, 2017; Aug. 4, 2017) criticizing employees taking time for family/children and recommending “dissolving” plaintiff’s role for "chronic issues with time and attendance."
Plaintiff complained to supervisors (not HR) about sexually inappropriate comments by coworker David Garziniti; she did not file an HR complaint.
Dispute over plaintiff’s Thursday schedule: defendants say plaintiff was required to work 11 AM–8 PM on late‑patient Thursdays; plaintiff says her hours were 9 AM–5 PM unless asked otherwise.
After complaints from a coworker about plaintiff leaving at 5 PM, Harrington memorialized concerns; HR (which defendants say made the termination decision) fired plaintiff on Aug. 7, 2017 for failing to work the proper hours.
Procedural posture: defendants moved for summary judgment; the court denied summary judgment as to the FMLA retaliation claim and granted it as to all other claims (Title VII, NYSHRL, NYCHRL retaliation and hostile work environment claims).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
FMLA retaliation — did taking FMLA motivate termination?	Harrington resented plaintiff’s FMLA leave (emails, changed treatment); termination followed shortly after leave, so FMLA was a motivating factor.	Termination was for legitimate, non‑discriminatory reason: plaintiff worked wrong hours on Thursdays (attendance/schedule issues).	Summary judgment denied as to FMLA retaliation — triable issue: evidence (emails, timing, attendance record ambiguity) permits a jury to find FMLA was a motivating factor.
Title VII & NYSHRL retaliation for complaining about coworker	Complaints about Garziniti led to retaliation/termination.	Termination based on attendance; HR made the decision and was not aware of complaints.	Summary judgment granted — plaintiff cannot show but‑for causation or that HR knew of complaints.
NYCHRL retaliation for complaining about coworker	Same as federal/state claims; NYCHRL construed broadly.	No causal link: HR unaware; recommendation too attenuated.	Summary judgment granted — no reasonable juror could find termination “as a result” of complaints.
Hostile work environment (Title VII & NYSHRL) based on Garziniti’s conduct	Repeated sexual comments/gestures created hostile environment.	Comments were isolated/occasionally offensive and not sex‑based discrimination; employer not responsible for pervasive hostility.	Summary judgment granted — plaintiff failed to show severe or pervasive sex‑based harassment.
NYCHRL hostile work environment	Even a single comment can be actionable under NYCHRL; claim should be construed broadly.	Conduct was petty slights/trivial inconveniences and not motivated by discriminatory intent.	Summary judgment granted — court found comments were not shown to be caused by discriminatory motive and were too trivial.

Key Cases Cited

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (sets burden‑shifting framework for discrimination/retaliation claims)
Woods v. START Treatment & Recovery Centers, Inc., 864 F.3d 158 (FMLA retaliation requires only a "motivating factor")
Graziadio v. Culinary Institute of America, 817 F.3d 415 (applies McDonnell Douglas framework to FMLA retaliation)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment: standard for genuine dispute and inferences)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (summary judgment where record could not lead a reasonable jury to find for nonmovant)
Mihalik v. Credit Agricole Cheuvreux N. Am., Inc., 715 F.3d 102 (NYCHRL construed broadly but not a general civility code)
Univ. of Tex. Southwestern Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (Title VII retaliation requires but‑for causation)