Olin Corporation v. INS. Company of N.A.

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided June 11, 2019·No. 1:84-cv-01968·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AMY VICTORIA RAMIREZ RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, 19-CV-4410 (LLS) -against- ORDER TO AMEND DANIEL GIKHER; PWG INSURANCE AGENCY; STEVEN SHAKHNEVICH, Defendants. LOUIS L. STANTON, United States District Judge: Plaintiff brings this pro se action under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112-12117; the ADA’s retaliation provision, 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a), and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging that her employer discriminated and retaliated against her based on her disability. Because Plaintiff names individual defendants, the Court construes the complaint as also asserting claims under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). By order dated May 29, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within sixty days of the date of this order. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint, or portion thereof, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998). The Court must also dismiss a complaint when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474-75 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). BACKGROUND Plaintiff brings this barebones employment discrimination complaint, asserting that

Defendants discriminated against her during her employment at PWG Insurance Agency (PWG) in New York City and Palm Beach, Florida, between August 2018, and January 2019.1 Plaintiff alleges that she “is of protected status,” that she “held contractual agreement with Defendant,” that she “requested reasonable accommodation,” was “harassed by Defendant,” and terminated “due to Defendant’s failure to accommodate her disabilities.” (ECF No. 2 at 5.) Plaintiff also names as Defendants Daniel Gikher and Steven Shakhnevich, but she does not state any facts suggesting their personal involvement. Attached to the complaint is a notice of right to sue from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that is dated February 19, 2019, showing that Plaintiff timely filed this action here (Id. at 8.) In the relief section of the complaint, in addition to seeking money damages, Plaintiff

seeks injunctive relief; specifically, she seeks an order directing Defendants to “design or purchase then incept [sic] an annual ADA-Awareness training program for all employees and an

1 On February 8, 2019, Plaintiff filed an employment discrimination against Morgan Stanley, Morgan Stanley Wealth Management, and individual employees, alleging that from March 2015 to October 2016, they discriminated against her based on her disabilities (morbid obesity, attention deficit disorder, and major depression), in violation of the ADA and § 1981. See Rodriguez v. Gorman, No. 19-CV-1270 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2019). On March 21, 2019, the Court transferred the action to the District of New Jersey. See Rodriguez v. Gorman, No. 19- CV-9104 (CCC) (JBC) (case opened in District of New Jersey on Mar. 29, 2019). On May 13, 2019, the defendants in that action moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s amended complaint. Id. (ECF No. 12.) On the same day that Plaintiff filed this complaint, she filed two other very similar complaints against different employers. See Rodriguez v. Morales, No. 19-CV-4409 (S.D.N.Y. filed May 14, 2019); Rodriguez v. Koroghlian, No. 19-CV-4411 (S.D.N.Y. filed May 14, 2019). ADA-Management training program for employees who supervise others . . . [with] Plaintiff to be featured in both programs.” (Id. at 6.) DISCUSSION A. Plaintiff fails to state any facts supporting her ADA claim against PWG “The ADA prohibits discrimination against a ‘qualified individual on the basis of disability’ in the ‘terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.’” Kinneary v. City of New

York, 601 F.3d 151, 155 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a)). A person is disabled under the ADA if the person has “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(A). This antidiscrimination provision prohibits employers from mistreating an individual because of the individual’s protected characteristics, Patane v. Clark, 508 F.3d 106, 112 (2d Cir. 2007), or retaliating against an employee who has opposed any practice made unlawful by those statutes, see Crawford v. Metro. Gov’t, 555 U.S. 271, 276 (2009) (holding that conduct is protected when it “confront[s],” “resist[s],” or “withstand[s]” unlawful actions). Mistreatment at work that occurs for a reason other than an employee’s protected characteristic or opposition to unlawful conduct is not actionable under these federal antidiscrimination statutes. See Chukwuka

v. City of New York, 513 F. App’x 34, 36 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Brown v. Henderson, 257 F.3d 246, 252 (2d Cir. 2001)). At the pleading stage in an employment discrimination action, “a plaintiff must allege that the employer took adverse action against her at least in part for a discriminatory reason.” Vega v. Hempstead Union Free Sch. Dist., 801 F.3d 72, 87 (2d Cir. 2015). A plaintiff “may do so by alleging facts that directly show discrimination or facts that indirectly show discrimination by giving rise to a plausible inference of discrimination.” Id. Plaintiff fails to state a claim that PWG discriminated against her based on her disability because she does not state any facts describing the nature of her disability, what occurred during her employment at PWG, what type of accommodation she requested, the reasons given, if any, for her termination, or why she believes the termination was based on her disabilities. The Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend her complaint to assert any facts suggesting

that PWG violated the ADA. B.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Olin Corporation v. INS. Company of N.A., (S.D.N.Y. 2019).

Olin Corporation v. INS. Company of N.A. (Olin Corporation v. INS. Company of N.A.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kinneary v. City of New York
601 F.3d 151 (Second Circuit, 2010)
Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Spiegel v. Schulmann
604 F.3d 72 (Second Circuit, 2010)
Feingold v. New York
366 F.3d 138 (Second Circuit, 2004)
Chukwuka v. City of New York
513 F. App'x 34 (Second Circuit, 2013)
Patane v. Clark
508 F.3d 106 (Second Circuit, 2007)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Tolbert v. Smith
790 F.3d 427 (Second Circuit, 2015)
Vega v. Hempstead Union Free School District
801 F.3d 72 (Second Circuit, 2015)