Noia v. Orthopedic Associates
93 F. Supp. 3d 13
E.D.N.Y2015Background
- Plaintiff Cynthia Noia, a long-time employee of Orthopedic Associates of Long Island, alleges disability discrimination, age discrimination, and retaliation after a 2013 demotion, reduced hours, and negative performance review.
- Plaintiff suffers from dermatomyositis and claims she performed her duties satisfactorily despite her condition.
- Plaintiff initially sued under the ADA and New York State Human Rights Law and then moved to amend to add ADEA and FMLA claims and to join Dr. Steven Puopolo as an individual defendant.
- Defendant opposed only the addition of Dr. Puopolo; the remainder of the proposed amendments were unopposed.
- Court applied Rule 15/21 standards for amendment (liberality unless undue delay, bad faith, prejudice, or futility) and evaluated futility under the Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ADA and ADEA claims can be asserted against Dr. Puopolo individually | Noia sought to add individual ADA and ADEA claims against Puopolo | Puopolo argued individual liability is not available under ADA/ADEA | Denied — ADA and ADEA do not permit individual liability; amendment to add those claims against Puopolo futile |
| Whether FMLA claim can be asserted against Dr. Puopolo individually | Noia alleged Puopolo was owner/principal with supervisory authority and thus an "employer" under FMLA | Puopolo contended individual FMLA liability is not appropriate here | Denied — Court found plaintiff failed to allege Puopolo’s direct, personal involvement in the alleged FMLA violation; amendment to add FMLA claim against him denied |
| Whether state-law (NYSHRL) claims against Puopolo should be allowed under supplemental jurisdiction | Noia sought to add NYSHRL claims arising from same facts | Defendant argued court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over individual state claims | Granted — Court exercised supplemental jurisdiction; state claims arise from same nucleus of operative fact and no novel/state-law confusion justified declining jurisdiction |
| Whether the remainder of the proposed amendments should be allowed | Noia sought to add ADEA/FMLA claims against corporate defendant and to expand factual allegations | Defendant did not oppose those portions | Granted — Unopposed amendments allowed; plaintiff to file amended complaint consistent with order |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must contain sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim)
- Patterson v. County of Oneida, 375 F.3d 206 (2d Cir. 2004) (ADA/ADEA individual liability analysis)
- Lucente v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 310 F.3d 243 (2d Cir. 2002) (proposed amendment futile if could not withstand Rule 12(b)(6))
- Briarpatch Ltd., L.P. v. Phoenix Pictures, Inc., 373 F.3d 296 (2d Cir. 2004) (supplemental jurisdiction when state and federal claims share common nucleus of operative fact)
- DiFolco v. MSNBC Cable L.L.C., 622 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2010) (court evaluates legal feasibility on Rule 12(b)(6), not weight of evidence)