Pignone v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 1:20-cv-00005

Pignone was an Operations Management Supervisor at UPS's Albany hub and alleges repeated sexual harassment and unwanted touching by a higher‑level supervisor, Frank Koncewitz, beginning in 2014.
She reported the incidents to her direct supervisor (Neroni) and to HR (Jane Faniff); Koncewitz was briefly transferred but later returned.
From September 2016 Pignone went on medical leave for severe anxiety attributed to workplace conditions; she returned, continued to fear encountering Koncewitz, and resigned on November 28, 2016.
After resigning UPS refused or delayed paying nine weeks of pay and contested her workers' compensation claim; she later recovered $5,000 in back pay.
Pignone sued in New York state court on October 10, 2019 (claims under NYSHRL for hostile work environment, retaliation, and constructive discharge); UPS removed and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing most events are time‑barred and that an offered transfer defeats constructive discharge.
Plaintiff did not respond to the motion; the court nevertheless evaluated the sufficiency and timeliness of the pleaded claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of hostile work environment claim	Alleged multi‑year harassment created hostile environment	Most actionable events occurred before 3‑year NYSHRL limitations period; failure to remediate is not an affirmative act to toll	Dismissed as time‑barred (no actionable defendant acts within 3 years)
Retaliation (including workers' compensation denial)	Complains of retaliatory conduct after complaints, including refusal/delay of pay and contesting workers' comp	Broadly time‑barred; most alleged retaliation occurred outside limitations	Survives only as to alleged bad‑faith interference with workers' compensation/back pay (timely)
Constructive discharge (resignation + offered transfer)	Resigned Nov. 28, 2016 because conditions were intolerable; rejected offered transfer as inadequate	Claim untimely or fails because plaintiff declined an alternative transfer	Timely (limitations triggered by resignation per Green); claim survives at pleading stage — rejection of transfer not dispositive now
Plaintiff's failure to oppose motion	No response filed	Argues merits and timeliness justify dismissal	Court reviewed merits regardless; non‑response does not automatically warrant dismissal if pleadings suffice

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must be plausible to survive dismissal)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for complaints)
Green v. Brennan, 136 S. Ct. 1769 (resignation, not last day worked, triggers limitations for constructive discharge)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination/retaliation claims)
Littlejohn v. City of New York, 795 F.3d 297 (minimal pleading showing of discriminatory motive at dismissal stage)
Fincher v. Depository Tr. & Clearing Corp., 604 F.3d 712 (failure to remediate generally not an independent act creating hostile work environment)
Whidbee v. Garzarelli Food Specialties, Inc., 223 F.3d 62 (imputing employee harassment to employer requires basis such as employer knowledge or lack of remedy)
Van Zant v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, 80 F.3d 708 (employer liability where employer knew and did nothing)
Alfano v. Costello, 294 F.3d 365 (totality of circumstances test for hostile work environment)
Riccard v. Prudential Ins. Co., 307 F.3d 1277 (bad‑faith denial of workers' compensation can be an adverse action for retaliation purposes)