Smith v. Westchester County
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15805
| S.D.N.Y. | 2011Background
- Plaintiff Roger Smith, a former correction officer for Westchester County DOC, was terminated on April 24, 2009.
- Plaintiff alleges FMLA violations and Title VII claims against Westchester, DOC, and several individual administrators in their official and individual capacities.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6), arguing statute of limitations, failure to plead FMLA claims, and improper service.
- Plaintiff’s FMLA claims center on leave to care for his seriously ill mother, with multiple denials and alleged misrecording of FMLA leave as sick days.
- The court granted the motion in part and denied in part, including granting leave to amend the FMLA eligibility pleadings and denying Title VII claims; DOC was dismissed as a defendant; some individual defendants’ liability was addressed.
- The court applied a three-year statute of limitations for willful FMLA violations and allowed amendment to cure pleading deficiencies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FMLA interference claim is timely and properly pleadable. | Smith alleges willful violations and 1,250 hours; seeks intereference relief. | Defendants argue hours eligibility and timeliness insufficient. | Interference claim dismissed for pleading defects but with leave to amend. |
| Whether DOC is an FMLA “employer” under §2611(4) and thus liable. | DOC is an employer under FMLA. | DOC not clearly pled as covered employer in second amended complaint. | DOC status as employer dismissed without prejudice to amend. |
| Whether individual defendants can be liable under FMLA. | Individual Defendants controlled or affected Smith’s FMLA rights. | Some individuals may not be liable; others not alleged to have controlled rights. | Spano, Turner, Gibson, and Isler liable; Pozzi and Lantz dismissed without prejudice. |
| Whether the FMLA retaliation claim is sufficiently pled. | Plaintiff alleges retaliation via attendance review and salary withholding tied to FMLA,”sufficient to plead plausible claim. | Retaliation standards require more conclusory pleading. | Retaliation claim survives; defendant's motion denied. |
| Whether service of process issues require dismissal. | All defendants eventually served; timely service unclear. | Rule 4(m) concerns apply; potential prejudice. | Service issues resolved in court’s discretion; case not dismissed for service. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must state plausible claim; no formulaic recitation)
- Porter v. N.Y. Univ. Sch. of Law, 392 F.3d 530 (2d Cir. 2004) (willfulness and timing considerations in FMLA context)
- Geromanos v. Columbia Univ., 322 F.Supp.2d 420 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (FMLA rights and reinstatement principles; eligibility thresholds)
- Sista v. CDC Ixis N. Am., Inc., 445 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2006) (private right of action under FMLA; interference/retaliation theories)
- Potenza v. City of New York, 365 F.3d 165 (2d Cir. 2004) (two types of FMLA claims; interference and retaliation)
- Behringer v. Lavelle Sch. for the Blind, 2010 WL 5158644 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (adverse actions standard under FMLA retaliation analogies to Burlington standard (Behringer is a district decision cited in this opinion))