Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, EMPLOYEE LEAVE—S.D.N.Y.: Target account manager can’t advance FMLA claims, (Jun 9, 2025)

By George Basharis, J.D.

The pro se plaintiff’s claims under Title VII and the ADA were also dismissed after she filed her complaint one day past the statutory deadline and failed to properly exhaust administrative remedies.

A federal court in New York has granted Target Corporation’s motion to dismiss an employment discrimination lawsuit, finding that the pro se plaintiff failed to meet critical procedural requirements across multiple federal employment law claims. The court dismissed Title VII claims as untimely filed, ADA claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and FMLA claims for insufficient factual allegations (Rivera v. Target Corp., No. 24-CV-6965 (JPO) (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 6, 2025)).

Title VII claims dismissed as untimely. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s Title VII discrimination claims after determining she filed her complaint one day beyond the required 90-day deadline following receipt of her right-to-sue letter from the EEOC.

The plaintiff, a former account manager at Target’s Roundel division, had been hired by the company in August 2022 and was the only person in her department who identified as a “queer African-American and Hispanic woman.” Her supervisor began working with her in January 2023, and she subsequently made complaints to Human Resources about allegedly discriminatory treatment, leading to her being placed on a performance improvement plan in October 2023. She took FMLA leave due to what she described as emotional and mental distress from a hostile work environment and was ultimately terminated in July 2024 after refusing to return to work under her original supervisor.

After filing an EEOC charge, the plaintiff received her right-to-sue notice on the evening of June 7, 2025, but did not file her federal lawsuit until September 6, 2024. Under Title VII’s strict timing requirements, plaintiffs must file suit within 90 days of receiving the notice, with courts required to adhere strictly to this deadline absent exceptional circumstances.

Equitable tolling. The plaintiff argued for equitable tolling based on receiving the notice in the evening, claiming this severely reduced her available time to respond. However, the court rejected this argument, noting that the plaintiff’s own documents showed she downloaded, read, and emailed questions about the notice to the EEOC on the same evening she received it. The court emphasized that evening receipt of legal documents is routine in litigation and does not constitute the type of rare and exceptional circumstance that would justify extending the deadline.

Continuing violation. The plaintiff also sought relief under a continuing violation theory, arguing that Target’s allegedly discriminatory conduct continued after the EEOC notice issued. The court noted that while the Second Circuit has not definitively ruled on whether continuing violations can revive time-barred Title VII claims after receipt of a right-to-sue letter, every district court in the Second Circuit to address the issue has rejected this theory. The court distinguished between the 300-day period to file with the EEOC, where continuing violations may apply because patterns take time to emerge, and the 90-day period to file suit, where plaintiffs already know of the defendant’s conduct.

ADA claims fail to meet exhaustion requirements. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s ADA claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. While the plaintiff’s EEOC charge alleged discrimination based on race and national origin, it made no reference to disability discrimination.

The plaintiff argued her ADA claim was reasonably related to the allegations in her EEOC charge, but the court found this argument unavailing. The court noted that claims alleging discrimination based on different protected classifications are generally not considered reasonably related. Courts have consistently found that race discrimination claims are not reasonably related to disability discrimination claims.

The court observed that the plaintiff’s theory of disability discrimination, concerning Target’s alleged failure to reassign her to accommodate her anxiety, was drastically different from her race discrimination theory based on supposed mistreatment relative to similarly situated employees of other races.

FMLA claims dismissed for insufficient allegations. The court dismissed both interference and retaliation claims under the FMLA, though for different reasons. The FMLA interference claim failed because the plaintiff’s own complaint alleged she received all the FMLA leave to which she was entitled. The only alleged interference consisted of her supervisor emailing her personal account during leave and entering a performance evaluation in her file during that time. The court found these actions did not interfere with the plaintiff's ability to take leave, particularly since she did not allege the email contained negative content or that the evaluation was critical of her performance.

The FMLA retaliation claim failed because the plaintiff could not establish the required inference of retaliatory intent. The court analyzed three potential theories for establishing this inference: temporal proximity, disparate treatment of similarly situated employees, and direct evidence of retaliation.

Regarding temporal proximity, the court found the timing between the plaintiff's return from FMLA leave and her termination was too attenuated to support an inference of retaliation. The plaintiff's FMLA leave period was unusually long, spanning from October 2023 through April 2024, followed by paid time off through May 2024, with termination occurring in July 2024. Courts generally consider two to three months the outer limit for temporal proximity, and even the most favorable reading of the timeline exceeded this threshold.

The court also noted that the plaintiff alleged adverse conduct throughout her 20-month employment under her supervisor, beginning well before any protected FMLA activity. When gradual adverse actions begin before protected activity, temporal proximity alone cannot establish retaliation. The plaintiff could not proceed under a disparate treatment theory because she failed to allege that any other employees took FMLA leave or faced adverse consequences for doing so.

Finally, the court found the plaintiff’s own allegations undercut any inference of explicit retaliatory animus. She alleged that Target’s HR department repeatedly encouraged her to return to work following her FMLA leave, with representatives telling her she should work with her supervisor regardless of her complaints and that she would be unable to find another job quickly.

State law claims dismissed without prejudice. With no federal claims remaining, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law claims under New York State and New York City human rights laws.

The case is No. 24-CV-6965 (JPO).

Judge: Oetken, J.P.

Attorneys: Alondra Y. Rivera, pro se. Alnisa Shakirah Bell (Seyfarth Shaw) for Target Corporation.

Companies: Target Corporation

Cases: EmployeeLeave Discrimination DisabilityDiscrimination Retaliation Procedure NewYorkNews