Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Go v. Rockefeller University

March 6, 2008

ROSITA GO, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY, DEFENDANT.
X ROSITA GO, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ROBERTA MALONEY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Henry Pitman, United States Magistrate Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

I. Introduction

Plaintiff brings these actions pro se alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 1981 as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, "42 U.S.C. § 1985 conspiracy (28 U.S.C.A. 1343(a)(1))," the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654, New York State Human Rights Law, New York Executive Law § 296, the New York Administrative Code § 8-502, Department of Labor Regulations, and the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206, 207 and 216. Plaintiff also alleges medical malpractice (Plaintiff's Consolidated Amended Complaint, Docket Item 29 in 04 Civ. 4008 and Docket Item 23 in 06 Civ. 1825, ("Con. Am. Compl.") at ¶ 1).

By notice of motion dated April 11, 2007, plaintiff moves for leave to amend her complaint, pursuant to Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to "correct errors," "amplify statements," add counts and set forth additional claims (Notice of Motion, Docket Item 32 in 04 Civ. 4008).

For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff's motion to amend is denied without prejudice to renewal.

II. Facts

A. Background Facts

Plaintiff is a former employee of defendant Rockefeller University ("the University"). The individual defendants in this case are Kathleen Cassidy, Roberta Maloney, Michelle Keenan, Gloria Chang DiGennaro, Danielle Green and Sonia Austrian. According to plaintiff's complaint, Cassidy was plaintiff's immediate supervisor and reported to Maloney, the Assistant Vice President for Finance (Con. Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 15, 16). Keenan, plaintiff states, was the Employment Director for Human Resources at the University during her employment there, and DiGennaro was the Assistant Director (Con. Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 17, 18). Plaintiff states that Green was her social worker at the Employee Assistance Program Consortium (EAPC) and that Austrian was the director of the EAPC, which plaintiff has also named as a defendant (Con. Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 19, 20, 21).

Plaintiff, a Chinese-American, worked for the University for a total of approximately seventeen years (Con. Am. Compl. at ¶ 10). Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that she suffered several acts of discrimination and retaliation.

Plaintiff alleges that the University, Cassidy and Maloney harassed her, failed to promote her, underpaid her and terminated her employment and that all the foregoing adverse actions were motivated by discriminatory animus based on plaintiff's disability, race, national origin, age and marital status; plaintiff also alleges that the foregoing adverse actions were retaliatory (Con. Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 14, 53, 59-60, 65-67). Plaintiff also claims that Maloney severely harassed her because of her disability and wrongfully disclosed confidential information about her to other staff (Con. Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 35-40). Plaintiff alleges that Austrian and Green conspired with the University to coerce plaintiff into undergoing counseling and taking disability leave, and then conspired to terminate her employment (Con. Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 73, 81, 111, 116). Plaintiff also claims that after she was forced to go on disability leave, DiGennaro failed to inform her of her rights and illegally cancelled her health benefits while she was still on leave (Con. Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 41, 82). Plaintiff alleges that afer she returned from leave, Maloney and Cassidy wrongfully assigned her to more menial duties, refused to return her to her old job, and eventually terminated her employment (Con. Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 47, 63, 64).

B. Procedural History

Plaintiff has filed a total of six complaints in her two cases regarding her claims of discrimination and retaliation while employed at the University.

1.

Plaintiff initially filed her complaint in New York State Supreme Court, New York County on May 6, 2004 against the University. On May 27, 2004, the action was removed to this court (Notice of Removal, Docket Item 1 in 04 Civ. 4008). The University answered plaintiff's first complaint on June 3, 2004 (Docket Item 4 in 04 Civ. 4008). On July 1, 2004, the Honorable Michael B. Mukasey, former United States District Judge, granted plaintiff's first motion to file an amended complaint ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.