Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—S.D.N.Y.: Former finance manager’s COVID-related lawsuit against New York Times dismissed, (Dec 8, 2025)

By Ursula Furi-Perry, J.D.

The employee’s COVID-19 infection fell short of the threshold to qualify as a disability for purposes of disability discrimination.

A former finance manager sued the New York Times alleging disability discrimination, retaliation, and interference under the FMLA after her position was eliminated while she was on leave. A New York federal court held that the employee’s COVID-19 infection fell short of the threshold to qualify as a disability for purposes of disability discrimination. Moreover, the court dismissed the FMLA interference claim because the employee neither had her FMLA benefits denied nor was discouraged from using them (Acosta v. The New York Times Co. dba The New York Times, No. 25 Civ. 1119 (JPC) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2025)).

Positive test result. The employee worked for the New York Times as a finance manager of its online publication and subsidiary, “The Athletic,” starting in May 2023, then was promoted to an administrative director position. In February 2024, she told her supervisor that she woke up with a fever and would work from home while awaiting a COVID-19 test. After testing positive, she reported additional symptoms and expressed stress and exhaustion, but the supervisor instructed her to continue working because the employee had upcoming approved vacation time. A colleague later encouraged the employee to contact the employer’s Occupational Health division, which advised her to take COVID quarantine leave until her recovery. The employee’s illness lasted approximately five days.

Time-off request. During the summer of 2024, the employee requested a week off in November for a family event. Her supervisor responded negatively, questioned the length of the request, and said HR would need to be consulted. Upon further discussion, the supervisor offered alternative dates and refused adjustments, referring to performance concerns and the employee’s February illness, stating that “something is always happening.”

FMLA leave. At a subsequent meeting, the supervisor admitted that she had not adequately prepared examples of performance issues but discussed three general areas of concern: the employee’s analytical skills, workload management, and commitment to her role. The employee subsequently sought therapy for anxiety and fear of retaliation. In August 2024, she informed the supervisor that her grandmother was in hospice, prompting the employee to reach out to HR about possible family leave and concerns about retaliation. HR encouraged her to take leave and consider short-term disability for mental-health reasons. The employee’s short-term disability and FMLA leave were approved from late August through mid-November.

While on approved leave, the employee was informed that her position was being eliminated due to reduced work. HR stated that restructuring had been underway, but colleagues told the employee that no other roles were being cut. The employee also learned that the supervisor attempted to hire a contractor to replace her and allegedly concealed evidence of this effort. The plaintiff subsequently sued, claiming disability discrimination and retaliation under New York state law, as well as interference and retaliation under the FMLA. The employer filed a motion to dismiss.

Disability discrimination. On the claim for disability discrimination, the court ruled for the employer, holding that the employee’s COVID-19 infection fell short of the threshold to qualify as a disability for purposes of the New York City Human Rights Law. The court explained that while the code defines disability broadly, it is not without limits and noted that courts interpreting this definition consistently require that the impairment be sufficiently serious or persistent to meaningfully affect bodily systems.

In this case, the employee alleged that she had COVID-19 resulting in a fever and sore throat lasting approximately five days, and the court held that such a short-lived, mild illness did not satisfy the threshold for disability. The court compared the employee’s allegations to prior cases recognizing disabilities where the worker experienced severe, ongoing respiratory impairment, required oxygen, or suffered long-term symptoms. Accepting the employee’s position would effectively transform any common short-term illness into a statutory disability, the court held, which is contrary to state and federal precedent.

The court also held that the employee failed to state a claim for interference under the FMLA, which makes it “unlawful for any employer to interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of or the attempt to exercise any right provided under [the statute].” The court emphasized that the employee’s post-May 2024 leave requests, which represented the only period for which she was FMLA-eligible, were not only granted but actively encouraged by HR.

The employee did not allege that her leave was delayed, obstructed, or discouraged; instead, HR provided forms, expressed sympathy, and advised her to take leave and consider short-term disability. Moreover, her argument that earlier performance discussions constituted discouragement failed because she had not yet asserted FMLA rights at that time, and an interference claim requires an objectively asserted request for leave. Additionally, allegations that the employer failed to designate leave formally as FMLA-protected or failed to provide certain notices were insufficient, as the plaintiff had received all leave she had requested, and she was not prejudiced by any technical deficiencies, the court held.

The case is No. 25 Civ. 1119.

Judge: Cronan, J.

Attorneys: Madeline Howard (Joseph & Norinsberg) for Ara Acosta. Lisa Marie Griffith (Littler Mendelson) for The New York Times Company.

Companies: The New York Times Company

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination EmployeeLeave Retaliation Covid19 StateLawClaims NewYorkNews