Guerrero v. Constellation Home Care, LLC (NY), 2:22-cv-07736

Jennifer Guerrero was employed as a registered nurse by Constellation Home Care LLC (NY) for about five months, during which she became pregnant and requested accommodations.
Guerrero alleges she was denied accommodations related to her pregnancy and was terminated shortly after requesting information about Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave and short-term disability.
Defendants stated that Guerrero was ineligible for FMLA leave because she had not met the statutory requirements (12 months of employment, 1,250 hours of work).
Guerrero filed a complaint alleging violations of the ADA, Title VII (and its amendments), and New York state law, later seeking to amend her complaint to add FMLA retaliation claims.
The court considered whether to permit the amended complaint, focusing on whether Guerrero, as an ineligible employee, could maintain a FMLA retaliation claim.
The court ultimately recommended denying the motion to amend to add FMLA retaliation claims, finding such claims futile as a matter of law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Can an ineligible employee bring an FMLA retaliation claim?	Guerrero argued that FMLA retaliation claims do not always require FMLA leave eligibility; the statute protects a variety of rights.	Defendants asserted eligibility is a threshold requirement for any FMLA claim, including retaliation.	Court held FMLA eligibility is a prerequisite for retaliation; ineligible employees cannot bring a claim.
Does Arroyo-Horne v. City of NY bind the court to this rule?	Guerrero argued summary orders like Arroyo-Horne do not have precedential effect and the court can depart.	Defendants contended Arroyo-Horne’s reasoning is persuasive and followed by consensus in the Circuit.	Court found Arroyo-Horne persuasive and found no reason to depart from its reasoning.
Would allowing amendment to add the FMLA claim be futile?	Guerrero argued her claim should be allowed because she exercised protected rights under FMLA.	Defendants maintained the amendment would be futile because the law is clear on FMLA eligibility.	Court found the proposed FMLA claims futile and denied leave to amend.
Are there exceptional reasons to depart from Circuit consensus?	Guerrero claimed fairness and FMLA policy would be offended if employers could retaliate pre-eligibility.	Defendants said statutory text and case law exclude ineligible employees by design.	Court found no persuasive reason to depart from prevailing law.

Arroyo-Horne v. City of New York, [citation="831 F. App'x 536"] (2d Cir. 2020) (holding that eligibility under FMLA is a threshold requirement for both interference and retaliation claims)
Sista v. CDC Ixis N. Am., Inc., 445 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2006) (explaining statutory entitlement to FMLA leave and requirements for eligibility)