In Frey v. Northern Soy, Inc. et al, Case # 23-CV-6198-FPG, 2024 WL 4373767 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 2, 2024), the court, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s retaliation claims.
From the decision:
Title VII, NYSHRL, and ADA Retaliation Claims
Plaintiff alleges that her termination was retaliation for her complaints about sex and disability discrimination, in violation of Title VII, the NYSHRL, and the ADA.4 Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to plausibly plead a causal connection between her protected activities and her termination. See ECF No. 10-1 at 20. The Court disagrees.For purposes of a prima facie case of retaliation under these statutes, a causal connection between an employee’s protected activities and the retaliatory conduct can be established by their “close temporal proximity.” Nofal v. IMCMV Times Square LLC, No. 22-CV-3104, 2024 WL 1138928, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2024). Reading the complaint in the light most favorable to her, just before her termination, Plaintiff asked Defendants for time off so that she could attend a medical appointment related to her anxiety. It is reasonable to read the complaint to allege that, at this time, Plaintiff also complained about “what was happening at work.” ECF No. 1 ¶ 40. In response, “Plaintiff was met with resistance once again regarding the time off,” and was soon terminated. Id. ¶¶ 40-41. The close temporal proximity between the complaint and Plaintiff’s termination—consisting of a few days or weeks—is sufficient to establish a causal connection at the pleading stage. See Nofal, 2024 WL 1138928, at *9. The Court declines to dismiss the retaliation claims on this ground.
The court did, however, dismiss plaintiff’s claims of retaliation against defendant’s owners under Title VII and the ADA.