299 F.R.D. 348
N.D.N.Y.2014Background
- Plaintiff Linda M. DiFillippo sues Special Metals Corporation and several individuals alleging discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, ADA, RA, NYHRL, and NY Constitution, culminating in her June 17, 2011 termination.
- Plaintiff sustained a hand injury in 2006, entered a hand-restricted role, and was deemed disabled under ADA/RA/NYHRL.
- Plaintiff filed an EEOC charge in 2008, was laid off around Jan 31, 2009, and later sued in 2009; multiple EEOC charges followed in 2010 and 2011.
- Plaintiff was rehired as Inspector in June 2010 by EEOC directive, but faced adverse treatment and was reassigned among departments, with male employees treated more favorably.
- Plaintiff was demoted on Feb 25, 2011, suspended in June 2011, and terminated on June 17, 2011; Plant Rule 19 allegedly not properly posted.
- Defendants removed the action to federal court; Plaintiff moves to amend; Court resolves jurisdiction, service, and amendment issues in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ADA/RA/NYHRL claims against Special Metals survive notice limitations. | DiFillippo provides notice of disability claims. | Notice only referenced gender discrimination; disability claims not properly described. | Denied; summons with notice adequately apprised the action's nature. |
| Whether RA claim survives dismissal and can be amended. | RA claim is viable and should be amended. | RA claim fails as to federal assists; amendment unnecessary. | RA claim not dismissed; amendment granted. |
| Whether personal jurisdiction over individual Defendants exists. | Individuals are properly served post-removal. | Lack of personal jurisdiction over individuals. | Personal jurisdiction challenged but individual Defendants named in amended complaint; denial of dismissal on this ground. |
| Whether Bierstine, Dabbs, and Maschino were properly served. | Service extended despite relocation; good cause shown. | Service inadequate due to relocation or insufficient receipt. | Extension granted for Bierstine and Dabbs; Maschino service defect cured by supplementation. |
| Whether Title VII/ADA/RA claims against individual Defendants should be dismissed. | Plaintiff asserts claims against individuals. | No such claims asserted against individuals in opposition papers. | Claims against individual Defendants under Title VII/ADA/RA dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Robertson-Ceco Corp., 84 F.3d 560 (2d Cir.1996) (burden of proof for personal jurisdiction; prima facie showing standard)
- Ball v. Metallurgie Hoboken-Overpelt, 902 F.2d 194 (2d Cir.1990) (prima facie jurisdictional showing standard)
- CutCo Indus., Inc. v. Naughton, 806 F.2d 361 (2d Cir.1986) (pleading-based jurisdictional allegations insufficient without facts)
- Jazini v. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., 148 F.3d 181 (2d Cir.1998) (ug-banner: avoid mere legal conclusions in jurisdictional pleadings)
- Mangiafico v. Blumenthal, 471 F.3d 391 (2d Cir.2006) (integral documents may be considered on motion to dismiss)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard; plausibility required)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (note on notice and process in due process)
- Tiberio v. Allergy/Immunology of Rochester, 664 F.3d 35 (2d Cir.2011) (statutory tolling/notice in context of ADA claims)