166 F. Supp. 3d 274
E.D.N.Y2016Background
- Kelly, a part-time LIJ home-care registered nurse and recovering alcoholic, tested positive for morphine after a Mexico vacation and disclosed treatment and sobriety efforts to LIJ supervisors in April–June 2011. OPD later concluded she posed no risk to patients.
- On July 1, 2011, after a meeting with LIJ HR (Sabatino and Caravello) during which Kelly disclosed her alcoholism and treatment status, LIJ placed her on administrative leave the same day.
- LIJ later presented a "Last Chance Agreement" in August 2011 requiring a broad release within eight days; Kelly declined, resigned on August 17, 2011, and alleged constructive discharge and retaliation.
- Kelly filed EEOC/NYSDHR charges (initial charge dated August 8, 2011 and an amended charge); NYSDHR and EEOC issued right-to-sue letters after dismissals for lack of probable cause.
- Procedurally, Kelly amended her complaint after the Court gave leave only to replead ADA discrimination and retaliation claims; LIJ moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether administrative leave constituted ADA discrimination (motivating-factor or but-for causation) | Kelly alleges temporal proximity (placed on leave ~2 hours after disclosing alcoholism) and that Sabatino referenced her "problem," supporting an inference of disability-based adverse action | LIJ contends leave resulted from concern about an OPD/PAP investigation and possible jeopardy to Kelly's nursing license, not discrimination | Denied dismissal: pleaded plausible inference of disability-based adverse action; claim survives to discovery |
| Whether the Last Chance Agreement amounted to constructive discharge under the ADA | Kelly says the ultimatum forced her to choose between job and rights, constituting constructive discharge | LIJ says the agreement extended employment and was not aimed to force resignation; also notes prior hostile-work-environment claim was dismissed | Dismissed with prejudice: constructive-discharge claim fails because hostile work environment claim already dismissed and complaint lacks allegations showing intolerable working conditions |
| Whether Kelly exhausted administrative remedies for July 27, 2011 informal complaint (ADA retaliation) | Kelly contends her informal July 27 phone call to Sabatino (threatening to file complaint) and subsequent Last Chance Agreement are actionable retaliation and relate to her EEOC charges | LIJ argues the July 27 call and that specific retaliation were not in the EEOC charges and thus unexhausted | Dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction: July 27 claim unexhausted and outside EEOC charge scope |
| Whether LIJ retaliated for Kelly filing EEOC/NYSDHR charges by offering Last Chance Agreement | Kelly alleges the Last Chance Agreement was retaliatory for filing the administrative complaint | LIJ argues it was unaware of Kelly's NYSDHR/EEOC filing before offering the agreement | Dismissed with prejudice: amended complaint fails to allege LIJ knew of the administrative complaint before making the offer |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (legal standard for plausible pleading)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state a claim plausible on its face)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (but-for causation requirement in ADEA context)
- University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (but-for causation for retaliation claims)