Robinson v. AETNA

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedMay 28, 2024
Docket1:23-cv-11100
StatusUnknown

This text of Robinson v. AETNA (Robinson v. AETNA) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Robinson v. AETNA, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK LAKIEA ROBINSON, Plaintiff, 23-CV-11100 (LTS) -against- ORDER TO AMEND AETNA, Defendant. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, brings this action alleging that Defendant discriminated and retaliated against her, and subjected her to a hostile work environment. (ECF 1 ¶ V.) By order dated January 18, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), that is, without prepayment of fees. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days of the date of this order. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss an IFP complaint, or any portion of the complaint, 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 of the claims raised. 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 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). But the “special solicitude” in pro se cases, id. at 475 (citation omitted), has its limits – to state a claim, pro se pleadings still must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.

BACKGROUND Plaintiff Lakeia, who resides in Bridgeport, Connecticut, filed this complaint against Aetna, for which she provides a Kentucky address, arising from her employment with Coca- Cola, in Elmsford, New York. Using the court’s Employment Discrimination Complaint form, Plaintiff asserts claims of discrimination based on race, color, sex, age, and disability, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehab Act), the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the New York State Human Rights Law.1 (ECF 1 ¶ III.) The following facts are drawn from the complaint. Plaintiff is a Black, African American woman, born in 1972, who suffers from “work related stress” and “workplace anxiety disorder.”

(Id. ¶ 1A.) In March 2017, Plaintiff requested FMLA leave “to go to Catholic Charities,” but that request was denied, “because management told them to deny [her].” (Id. ¶ V.B.) According to Plaintiff, “[t]hey w[ere] supposed to only listen to [her] medical provider request & not what the managers told them to do to [her].” (Id.) Plaintiff asserts that Defendant did not “accept [her]

1 Plaintiff filed five other pro se complaints in this court relating to her employment with Coca-Cola. See Robinson v. Coca-Cola, ECF 1:23-CV-10552, 1 (UA) (citing the same statutes invoked in this complaint); Robinson v. Sedgwick, ECF 1:23-CV-10782, 6 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2024) (Plaintiff directed to file an amended complaint); Robinson v. Bagwell, ECF 1:24-CV- 621, 1 (UA); Robinson v. Kelly, ECF 1:24-CV-625, 4 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2024) (action transferred to the District of Connecticut); Robinson v. Magna Care, ECF 1:24-CV-0869, 5 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2024) (Plaintiff directed to file an amended complaint). request,” or “treat [her] fairly,” and that “this was a toxic mentally & physically work environment.” (Id. ¶ IV.) Plaintiff does not allege in this complaint that Coca-Cola fired her, but she states in another complaint that her last day of employment with Coca-Cola was April 1, 2017. Robinson v. Sedgwick Claims Mgmt. Serv., No. 23-CV-10782 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y.) (ECF 1 at

9.) Plaintiff purports to seek reasonable accommodation for her disability and money damages for “breach of fiduciary duty, not acting in good faith efforts, violating [her] ERISA rights, ADA, GINA.” (Id. ¶ VI.) 2 Plaintiff moves for appointment of pro bono counsel and an “Order to Serve Defendants.” (ECF 3, 5.) DISCUSSION A. Short and Plain Statement of Claim Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. A complaint states a claim for relief if the claim is plausible. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). To review a complaint for plausibility, the Court accepts all

well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draws all reasonable inferences in the pleader’s favor. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). The Court need not accept,

2 When prompted by the complaint form to provide information about exhausting administrative remedies, Plaintiff asserts that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a notice of right to sue on November 17, 2023. (Id. ¶ V.) Plaintiff does not provide a copy of the notice, but she refers to the complaint that she filed in Robinson v. Coca- Cola, No. 24-CV-10552, attached to which is the November 17, 2023 notice, which names Coca- Cola as the sole respondent, and states that the charge was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Id. ECF 1-1. Plaintiff attached the same EEOC notice to three of her other complaints, although Coca-Cola is not a defendant in those cases. No. 23-CV-10782, ECF 7 at 12; No. 24-CV-625, ECF 1 at 8; No. 24-CV-869, ECF 1 at 8. however, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,” which are essentially legal conclusions. Id. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). After separating legal conclusions from well-pleaded factual allegations, the court must determine whether those facts make it plausible – not merely possible – that the pleader is entitled to relief. Id.

B. Causes of action FMLA The FMLA allows a covered employee to take up to 12 weeks of leave per year to care for the employee’s own serious health condition or to care for a parent, spouse, or child who has a serious health condition. Higgins v. NYP Holdings, Inc., 836 F. Supp. 2d 182, 193 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 2612). The Second Circuit has recognized two types of FMLA claims, interference and retaliation claims. See Smith v. Westchester Cnty, 769 F. Supp. 2d 448, 463 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (citing Potenza v.

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

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)
Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill
484 U.S. 343 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc.
511 U.S. 298 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Wisconsin Department of Corrections v. Schacht
524 U.S. 381 (Supreme Court, 1998)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Bennie Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., Inc.
877 F.2d 170 (Second Circuit, 1989)
Hill v. Curcione
657 F.3d 116 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Peter Potenza, Clifford Aversano v. City of New York
365 F.3d 165 (Second Circuit, 2004)
Chukwuka v. City of New York
513 F. App'x 34 (Second Circuit, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Robinson v. AETNA, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-aetna-nysd-2024.