403 F.Supp.3d 133
E.D.N.Y2019Background
- Plaintiff Desiree De Figueroa, a tenured curator (SL-3) in Stony Brook University’s Undergraduate Biology program, has Crohn’s disease and alleges repeated adverse actions after she requested and used FMLA leave between 2011–2017.
- Key alleged acts: hostile comments by Director John P. Gergen about FMLA users; an April 2013 temporary denial/accusation of forging an FMLA form (later corrected); being shouted at and told to resign in 2013; denial of promotion to Assistant Director (June 2015); increased and altered job duties, reduced credit card limit, altered performance evaluations (2016–2017); denial of discretionary bonus (circa Jan 2017).
- Plaintiff sued New York State, SUNY Stony Brook, Gergen and HR director Lynn Johnson under FMLA, ADA, Rehabilitation Act, §1983, and NYSHRL. Defendants moved to dismiss; court granted in part and denied in part.
- Court held New York State and SUNY are immune to many claims under the Eleventh Amendment except Rehabilitation Act claims (waiver via receipt of federal funds); some official-capacity claims against individual defendants survived only to the extent prospective injunctive relief is sought under Ex parte Young.
- After pleading and limitations analysis, the court allowed (1) Rehabilitation Act claims against the State and University to proceed; (2) FMLA retaliation claim against Gergen in his individual capacity (based on alleged denial of bonus in Jan 2017); (3) limited prospective injunctive ADA/FMLA claims against individual defendants in official capacities. All other federal and state claims were dismissed; Johnson was terminated from the action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eleventh Amendment and sovereign immunity | State/SUNY may be sued under Rehabilitation Act and some injunctive relief against officials is available | NY State and SUNY immune to most federal/state claims; official-capacity suits barred absent waiver/abrogation | Rehabilitation Act suits against State/SUNY allowed (waiver via federal funds). FMLA, ADA, NYSHRL claims against State/SUNY dismissed. Prospective injunctive relief against officials may proceed under Ex parte Young where ongoing violations alleged |
| FMLA interference (failure-to-provide/ discourage leave) | De Figueroa alleges denial and discouragement caused her to fear requesting leave (2015 episode) | Defendants argue no timely, plausible interference after limitations cutoff; prior denials were corrected | Interference claim dismissed as to post-Jan-26-2015 period: plaintiff did not objectively assert rights within limitations window and prior denial was cured; discouragement theory fails plausibly here |
| FMLA retaliation | Plaintiff alleges retaliation (denied promotion, altered duties/evals, denied bonus) for exercising FMLA rights | Defendants say events are not temporally or causally connected to protected activity (or time-barred) | Retaliation claim survives only as to Gergen in his individual capacity based on alleged denial of discretionary bonus around Jan 2017 (close temporal proximity). Other retaliatory acts are time-barred or insufficiently tied to protected activity; claim against Johnson dismissed |
| ADA / Rehabilitation Act (discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation) | Plaintiff asserts disability-based discrimination and hostile work environment tied to Crohn’s disease and retaliation after EEOC charge | Defendants argue lack of causal linkage to disability, many acts time-barred, and State immunity for ADA claims | Rehabilitation Act claims against State/SUNY survive for post-Jan-26-2014 acts but discrimination and hostile-work-environment claims dismissed for failure to allege but-for causation to disability. ADA retaliation/injunctive claims against Gergen in official capacity permitted in limited respects (salary denial and prospective relief); many ADA claims dismissed |
| Section 1983 due process claim | Plaintiff asserted §1983 due process/retaliation | Defendants moved to dismiss; plaintiff did not defend the claim | §1983 claim deemed abandoned and dismissed |
| NYSHRL claims | Plaintiff alleges state-law discrimination/retaliation against individuals | Defendants: State immunity and requirement of employer liability precludes aiding-and-abetting against individuals | NYSHRL claims dismissed in full; State/SUNY immunity and failure to state viable employer liability precluded individual liability; all NYSHRL claims dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard; plausibility requirement)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard; factual plausibility)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (permits prospective injunctive suits against state officials)
- Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Maryland, 566 U.S. 30 (FMLA self-care provision does not abrogate state sovereign immunity)
- Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (Congress did not abrogate state sovereign immunity for Title I ADA employment claims)
- Graziadio v. Culinary Institute of America, 817 F.3d 415 (2d Cir.) (FMLA individual-employer analysis; interference/retaliation framework)
- Potenza v. City of New York, 365 F.3d 165 (2d Cir.) (distinguishing FMLA interference and retaliation claims)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for retaliation/discrimination claims)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (retaliation adverse-action standard broader than for discrimination)
- Dube v. State Univ. of N.Y., 900 F.2d 587 (2d Cir.) (state sovereign immunity and §1983 limitations as to state entities)