In Margarita v Mountain Time Health, LLC, No. 2023-07450, 527470/22, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 04089, 2025 WL 1888542 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept., July 09, 2025), the New York Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court’s order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s gender-based discrimination under the New York State and Human Rights Laws.
From the decision:
Here, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint (see Acala v. Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky & Popeo, P.C., 222 A.D.3d at 707–708, 201 N.Y.S.3d 202; Ayers v. Bloomberg, L.P., 203 A.D.3d at 874, 165 N.Y.S.3d 554; Domitz v. City of Long Beach, 187 A.D.3d at 855–856, 133 N.Y.S.3d 647). There is no dispute that the plaintiff was a member of a protected class on the basis of gender, that she was qualified for her position, or that the termination of her employment from MTH constituted both an adverse employment action for the purpose of the NYSHRL and an unfavorable change in employment for the purpose of the NYCHRL, to the extent it was motivated by a discriminatory purpose. The dispute between the parties focuses on whether the “circumstances … give rise to an inference of [gender] discrimination” (Ayers v. Bloomberg, L.P., 203 A.D.3d at 874, 165 N.Y.S.3d 554).
In support of their motion, the defendants submitted evidentiary material, including an affidavit from Powell, an internal MTH document showing the employees who worked as medical technicians at the plaintiff’s assigned unit throughout May 2022, and a termination notice sent via email to various employees, including the plaintiff, on June 4, 2022. This evidentiary material was sufficient to demonstrate that MTH terminated the employment of numerous employees at the same time that it terminated the plaintiff’s employment, including two other medical technicians who had performed work at the plaintiff’s assigned unit in the month prior to the termination of her employment. Therefore, the defendants established that “a material fact as claimed by the plaintiff”—that she was the only layoff in her department—“was not a fact at all” (Thaw v. North Shore Univ. Hosp., 129 A.D.3d 937, 939, 12 N.Y.S.3d 152 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Cordell Marble Falls, LLC v. Kelly, 191 A.D.3d at 762, 142 N.Y.S.3d 170; cf. Kaplan v. New York City Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene, 142 A.D.3d 1050, 1052, 38 N.Y.S.3d 563).
The plaintiff nonetheless contends that the temporal proximity between her pregnancy announcement to Golemi and the subsequent termination of her employment with MTH was sufficient to give rise to an inference of discrimination. “[T]emporal proximity … may, under some circumstances, be sufficient in itself to permit the inference of a causal connection” for the purpose of a discrimination or retaliation claim (Harrington v. City of New York, 157 A.D.3d 582, 586, 70 N.Y.S.3d 177; see La Marca–Pagano v. Dr. Steven Phillips, P.C., 129 A.D.3d 918, 921, 12 N.Y.S.3d 192; cf. Tibbetts v. Pelham Union Free Sch. Dist., 143 A.D.3d 806, 808, 39 N.Y.S.3d 195). However, under the circumstances presented, including that numerous other MTH employees were laid off at the same time as the plaintiff, the temporal proximity between her pregnancy announcement and the termination of her employment, standing alone, does not give rise to an inference of discrimination.
Accordingly, the court held that dismissal was warranted.