In Argoti v. Equinox Holdings, Inc., No. 152903/2019, 2024 WL 1599371 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Apr. 10, 2024), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of plaintiff’s claim of discrimination based on plaintiff’s disability and domestic violence status asserted under the New York City Human Rights Law.
From the decision:
Plaintiff contends that Equinox terminated her employment based on her disability and her status as a survivor of domestic violence. Plaintiff claims that she was good at her job, consistently met or exceeded sales quotas, received good performance reviews and good reports from “mystery shoppers.” See NYSCEF Doc. No. 84 at 2. An email dated August 8, 2017, suggests that Mr. Snaric was considering promoting plaintiff before plaintiff’s disability leave. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 83, pp. 4-5. Plaintiff asserts that she was concerned that Equinox had a history of terminating employees who went out on leave, but was assured by Ms. Laminsky that it did not happen anymore. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 84 at 5. Plaintiff then took a three-week disability leave from August 14, 2017, to September 7, 2017. Mr. Snaric decided to terminate plaintiff and communicated this decision while she was on disability leave. In addition, around the same time as Mr. Snaric’s decision to terminate plaintiff, there was an ongoing proceeding for an order of protection initiated by plaintiff against Mr. German. Mr. German had filed a petition to modify the initial order on July 13, 2017, stating his need to attend events organized by Equinox, where both he and plaintiff might be required to be present. Supporting Mr. German’s petition was a letter issued by the Human Resources Department of Equinox. Mr. Snaric asserts that he was unaware of the protective order when he terminated plaintiff. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 90. However, the letter issued by Equinox shows that Equinox was fully aware of the order of protection, and most likely, the details of the court case involving Mr. German and plaintiff.
This Court holds that defendant has failed to sufficiently meet its initial burden of showing that “there is no evidentiary route that could allow a jury to believe that discrimination played a role in the challenged action. See Bennett, 92 AD3d at 40. It is imperative for a jury to examine the evidence comprehensively and assess the interplay among these factors, including whether the non-discriminatory rationale provided by Equinox for its actions holds merit, and if so, the jury must then deliberate on whether plaintiff’s termination by Equinox was influenced, even partially, by plaintiff’s disability leave and the ongoing order of protection (which was not due to expire until October 5, 2017). See NYSCEF Doc. No. 88, Protective Order.
Based on the foregoing, the court concluded that “there are triable issues of material fact as to whether Equinox’s explanations for plaintiff’s termination are pretextual or whether the termination was motivated at least in part by discrimination.”