Crianza v. Holbrook Plastic Pipe Supply, Inc.
2:22-cv-07685
| E.D.N.Y | Jan 19, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Kerilee Crianza worked as a bookkeeper for Holbrook Plastic Pipe Supply, Inc. from 2000 until her termination in December 2021.
- In 2017, a colleague, Christi Lee Jimenez, left Holbrook to serve in the U.S. Army, and attempted to return in 2020 after her service.
- Crianza informed Holbrook in July 2020 that they were required under USERRA to rehire Jimenez; Holbrook did not reemploy Jimenez.
- Crianza was terminated by Holbrook in December 2021, approximately 18 months after she raised the USERRA issue.
- Crianza sued Holbrook and Carolyn Olsen (individually), alleging her termination was in retaliation for asserting Jimenez’s USERRA rights.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim; Plaintiff also requested leave to amend her complaint if dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Plaintiff retaliated against in violation of USERRA? | Crianza was terminated for asserting Holbrook’s USERRA obligation to rehire Jimenez. | No causal connection between protected activity and termination; 18-month gap too attenuated. | Plaintiff failed to plausibly allege causation; dismissal granted. |
| Is temporal proximity sufficient to infer retaliation? | Termination followed her protected statement about Jimenez; proximity supports inference. | 18-month gap is too long; courts require much closer proximity for inference. | Court found proximity insufficient; temporal gap breaks connection. |
| Disparate treatment of similarly situated employees? | Jimenez not reemployed, evidencing disparate treatment of USERRA-protected employees. | No allegations others suffered adverse action for raising similar issues. | Court found no allegations of similarly situated employee disparity. |
| Should Plaintiff be granted leave to amend? | Should be allowed to amend if complaint dismissed; could add new facts. | Amendment would be futile; Plaintiff failed to show new, curative allegations. | Leave to amend denied due to futility and lack of specifics. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (sets the plausibility standard for pleading a claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (further articulates plausibility and pleading standards)