Workneh v. Super Shuttle International Inc.
1:15-cv-03521
S.D.N.Y.Dec 28, 2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff Elias A. Workneh sued Super Shuttle, Veolia, and New York City Airporter alleging race/color/national-origin discrimination, retaliation, and FMLA violations arising from incidents January–July 2013.
- Relevant FMLA allegations: (1) Jan 2013 — requested sick leave via text but worked while taking OTC meds; (2) Feb 2013 — spent one night in hospital, doctor ordered >2 weeks off, was directed to work during that leave and opened facility while on medication; (3) Jul 2013 — asked to postpone vacation because of a post‑surgery appointment and was terminated while on that vacation.
- The district court previously dismissed FMLA claims without prejudice for failing to plead a qualifying “serious health condition”; Workneh filed a Third Amended Complaint attempting to cure defects.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the TAC’s FMLA claim; they also argued plaintiffs’ Jan and Feb 2013 claims were time‑barred under the FMLA’s two‑year statute of limitations.
- The Court evaluated whether the TAC adequately alleged (a) a “serious health condition” for each incident and (b) timeliness; it treated each leave request separately for pleading sufficiency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TAC alleges a serious health condition for Jan 2013 | Jan request for sick leave after text; worked while on OTC meds — implies need for leave | No allegation of any serious health condition; merely OTC medication | Dismissed: Jan 2013 claim fails — no serious health condition alleged |
| Whether TAC alleges a serious health condition for Feb 2013 | Alleged overnight hospital stay and >2 weeks incapacity — qualifies as inpatient care | Timeliness: claim occurred >2 years before suit; no willfulness alleged to extend SOL | Dismissed as time‑barred: although inpatient care suffices, claim untimely under 2‑year SOL |
| Whether TAC alleges a serious health condition for Jul 2013 | Had a post‑surgery appointment during vacation — implies ongoing medical issue | Post‑surgery appointment alone does not plead FMLA “continuing treatment” categories | Dismissed: timely but fails to plead facts showing a qualifying serious health condition |
| Whether leave to replead FMLA claim should be granted | Plaintiff already repleaded in TAC after prior dismissal | Repleading insufficient; facts still deficient and claims time‑barred | Denied further leave; FMLA claim dismissed with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard requires factual content plausibly suggesting liability)
- Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must cross line from conceivable to plausible)
- Graziadio v. Culinary Institute of America, 817 F.3d 415 (2d Cir. 2016) (elements for FMLA interference claim)
- Hill v. Curcione, 657 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 2011) (pro se complaints construed liberally)