862 F. Supp. 2d 311
S.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Kim, an associate attorney at GWFG, alleged FMLA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL violations.
- She became pregnant in 2009 and took a 12-week leave in late 2009.
- In Feb 2010 she sought a reduced/intermittent schedule to breastfeed; firm denied.
- Kim was terminated in April 2010 allegedly for budgetary reasons; Nahmias hired earlier in Feb 2010.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims seeking dismissal of the FMLA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interference with FMLA rights via intermittent leave denial | Kim sought intermittent leave for caregiving. | GWFG policy prohibits part-time/remote work; no agreement for intermittent leave. | Interference claim failed; no entitlement to intermittent leave without agreement. |
| FMLA retaliation for 2010 intermittent leave request | Denied rights were retaliatory. | No entitlement to intermittent leave; no protected activity. | Retaliation claim related to 2010 leaveterminated; granted summary judgment. |
| FMLA retaliation for 2009 leave and subsequent termination | Termination linked to exercise of 2009 leave. | Economic downsizing; no causal link shown. | No causal link; no evidence of pretext; summary judgment for GWFG. |
| Supplemental jurisdiction over NYSHRL/NYCHRL claims | State claims should proceed in federal court. | Federal claims dismissed; state claims not salvageable. | Court declines supplemental jurisdiction; dismisses NYSHRL/NYCHRL claims without prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Potenza v. City of New York, 365 F.3d 165 (2d Cir. 2004) (establishes prima facie retaliation framework under FMLA)
- Sista v. CDC Ixis North Am., Inc., 445 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2006) (recognizes separate FMLA retaliation claim elements)
- Gallo v. Prudential Residential Servs., L.P., 22 F.3d 1219 (2d Cir. 1994) (summary judgment standard for retaliation cases)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S.133 (Sup. Ct. 2000) (pretext evidence as proof of intentional discrimination)
- Cronin v. Aetna Life Co., 46 F.3d 196 (2d Cir. 1995) (pretext framework in discrimination analysis)
- James v. New York Racing Ass’n, 233 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2000) (retaliation burden-shifting framework)
- Zimmermann v. Associates First Capital Corp., 251 F.3d 376 (2d Cir. 2001) (case-specific Reeves-style assessment for retaliation)