Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—E.D.N.Y.: Asian airport server’s associational disability bias claim advances but race bias claim fails, (Sep 11, 2026)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

The server’s daughter suffered from a severe mood disorder and ADHD and the server took intermittent FMLA leave in response.

Although an Asian server at an airport bar failed to show her suspension and subsequent termination following an altercation with her manager and the senior HR business partner, during which she called the HR business partner a bitch, was because of her race, her claim for associational disability discrimination based on her relationship with her daughter, who suffered from a severe mood disorder and ADHD, survived the employer’s summary judgment motion. And while the employee’s Title VII race-based retaliation claim also failed, the federal court in New York denied summary judgment against her ADA and FMLA retaliation claims (Anderson v. OTG Management, No. 25-3356 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2026)).

When the employee was hired in January 2022 by the airport bar and restaurant operator, she was the only Asian server. She also told HR on her hiring date that her daughter had a severe mood disorder and provided them with a letter from the daughter’s Intensive Family Care manager explaining her conditions.

Intermittent leave. According to the employee, throughout the next year, she had numerous conversations with the HR business partner about her daughter being in and out of facilities and programs related to her conditions. In June 2023, the HR business manager suggested that the employee apply for intermittent FMLA leave and offered to help her with initiating the paperwork. The employee was approved for intermittent leave beginning in October.

Different treatment. During her employment, the employee experienced a discrepancy in her tip distribution that, purportedly, management did not address for a substantial period of time while promptly resolving a non-Asian server’s tip complaint. The employee also claimed that her manager would “catch an attitude” with her and admonished her for being on her phone, including when she was on a call regarding her daughter, but allowed other employees to sit at the bar on their phones. Further, she alleged, the HR business partner was dismissive of her concerns.

Complaint. When the employee began taking FMLA leave in October 2023, her manager, she claimed, responded “not with support but with hostility,” including making comments such as “oh, it’s my daughter, it’s my daughter, I’m leaving,” or otherwise suggesting she was using her daughter’s condition to get out of work. The employee complained to the HR business partner and, in February 2024, submitted a written complaint raising concerns about an unidentified “unprofessional” “manager/director.” She also stated in the complaint that she did not feel comfortable dealing with HR at that location.

Leave usage. In March, the HR business partner emailed the company’s senior benefits manager regarding the employee’s leave usage, noting that she “frequently” invoked it. She also asked how to find out if the employee was properly reporting her absences and inquired as to when her leave would expire. The benefits manager reported that the employee had been properly reporting her absences and her leave would expire in October.

The next day, the HR business partner emailed management stating that the employee was reporting all call outs as required but stressing that if she was “not properly performing her job... management needs to proactively as a team document those issues and behavior.” Around that same time, the HR business partner suggested that the employee take “a break off of work and get [her] family together” or otherwise conveyed that she could quit.

Altercation and termination. On March 20, the employee was involved in an altercation with her manager after he instructed her on the use of a serving tray in a “hostile, yelling manner” even though she was using the tray in the same way as her coworkers. When she tried to walk away, the HR business partner and other managers arrived and she called the business partner a “bitch.” The HR business partner asked her to surrender her badge and when she refused, airport police were called and the badge was physically yanked off of her. The employee was suspended and fired shortly thereafter for unacceptable and unprofessional conduct.

Race discrimination. Granting summary judgment against the employee’s Title VII race discrimination claim, the court found no evidence the HR business partner, the decisionmaker in her termination, ever mentioned her race, took any action implicating her race, or had any information that anyone employed by the company ever said anything about or took any action against her based on her race.

And even if she could make out a prima facie case, the company proffered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse action—her cursing and refusal to hand over her badge—and she offered no evidence of pretext. Accordingly, the court found summary judgment appropriate as to this claim.

Associational disability discrimination. In response to the employee’s claim that it discriminated against her as a result of her daughter's disability in violation of the ADA and state law, the company argued that the HR business partner never made any comments to her about her daughter's disability despite knowing about it since she was hired. Although the HR business partner helped the employee apply for FMLA leave, the court noted that she also tracked how frequently the employee invoked leave and sought assurances that she was following the rules.

And while, said the court, it was “certainly the proper role of a superior such as [the HR business partner] to do so,” there was evidence that several weeks before the employee’s termination, she attempted to get the employee to quit her job instead of using her intermittent leave. In addition, the employee’s manager showed dismissive and uncaring behavior whenever the employee called out for her daughter’s condition, presuming that she simply wanted time off. He also made jokes about the daughter’s mental health condition.

While he was not a decisionmaker in the employee’s termination, and his comments might be insufficient on their own to support an inference of discrimination, the court found this was still relevant to demonstrating a general animus toward the employee, particularly if it accrued close in time to the termination decision.

Denying summary judgment against this claim, the court noted sufficient circumstantial evidence from which a jury could conclude that the disability of the employee’s daughter, and the associated taking of FMLA leave, was a determinative factor in the termination decision.

Retaliation. Turning to the employee’s retaliation claims, the court found her race-based claim failed for the same reasons as her race discrimination claim. Allowing her ADA and FMLA retaliation claims to proceed to trial, however, the court noted that she engaged in protected activity when she complained about her manager’s comments about her daughter, when she submitted a written complaint to HR, and when she used her FMLA leave.

Further, there was a short time between the employee’s termination and her protected activities as well as evidence of the HR business partner’s antagonism toward her leave usage to take care of her daughter, and her attempts to make her quit, which was enough for a reasonable juror to find that the reason given for her termination was pretextual.

The case is No. 25-3356.

Judge: Bartle, H, III.

Attorneys: David M. Koller (Koller Law) for Laura Anderson. Fara Ashley Cohen (Cozen O'Connor) for OTG Management.

Companies: OTG Management

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination EmployeeLeave Retaliation RaceDiscrimination Discharge PennsylvaniaNews