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.

Kruger v. Hamilton Manor Nursing Home

United States District Court, W.D. New York

March 26, 2014

GLORIA J. KRUGER, Plaintiff,
v.
HAMILTON MANOR NURSING HOME, Defendant

Gloria J. Kruger, Pro se, Plaintiff, Brockport, NY.

For Hamilton Manor Nursing Home, Defendant: James C. Holahan, LEAD ATTORNEY, Bond Schoeneck & King PLLC, Rochester, NY.

Page 386

DECISION AND ORDER

ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, United States District Judge.

Plaintiff Gloria J. Kruger (" Plaintiff" ) brings this action against Hamilton Manor Nursing Home (" Defendant" ) alleging violations of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (" ADA" ), 42 U.S.C. § § 12201 et seq. and the New York State Human Rights Law (" NYSHRL" ), Executive Law § § 290 et seq., the latter claims apparently based upon alleged disability, age, and gender discrimination.

Presently before the Court is Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). (Dkt. 6). Defendant argues that Plaintiff does not adequately allege facts sufficient to show that: (1) Plaintiff was disabled; (2) Defendant took any unlawful adverse employment action against Plaintiff; or (3) Plaintiff's reassignment was unlawfully

Page 387

motivated by discriminatory animus. Defendant also argues that the Court should dismiss Plaintiff's NYSHRL claims or, in the alternative, decline to exercise jurisdiction over them.

As discussed more fully below, the Court grants Defendant's motion directed to the ADA claims because Plaintiff has failed to allege a qualifying disability under the ADA. As a result, the Court does not reach Defendant's alternative grounds for dismissal of the ADA claims. In addition, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's NYSHRL claims.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, a licensed practical nurse and former employee of Defendant, alleges that she suffered a broken arm in or about June 2012, and that Defendant had actual notice of her medical condition on June 8, 2012, when Plaintiff submitted her doctor's note to Defendant's agents. (Dkt. 1 at ¶ ¶ 18 & 20). Plaintiff alleges that on June 11, 2012, she attended a meeting with " Supervisor Harris" and " Administrator Hamlin" regarding disciplinary actions to be taken against her. ( Id. at ¶ ¶ 23-25). Plaintiff alleges that at the conclusion of that meeting, she was told that if she did not agree to take an evening work shift, she would be fired. ( Id. at ¶ 26). Plaintiff also alleges that she was informed that her work was " sub par." ( Id.). On June 12, 2012, Plaintiff accepted the offer to work evenings ( id. at ¶ ¶ 29-31), and according to Plaintiff, this resulted in her demotion from " Team Leader" to " float nurse." ( Id. at ¶ 36).

Plaintiff further alleges that on June 21, 2012, Administrator Hamlin confronted Plaintiff with another incident that happened at the " Latta Road Nursing home" and accused Plaintiff of going to that location and telling them that she was threatened with termination if she refused to take a night shift. ( Id. at ¶ ¶ 32-34).

Plaintiff commenced the instant action on April 16, 2013. (Dkt. 1). Plaintiff was initially represented by Christina A. Agola, PLLC. On July 11, 2013, Defendant filed the present motion. (Dkt. 6). Responses were initially due by August 15, 2013 (Dkt. 8), but Plaintiff's counsel obtained an extension of time to October 15, 2013. (Dkt. 9). No responses were filed on behalf of Plaintiff, and on November 21, 2013, the Honorable William M. Skretny, Chief Judge, United States District Court, granted attorney Christina A. Agola's motion to withdraw in light of her suspension. (Dkt. 10). Thereafter, Plaintiff advised the Court by letter dated December 17, 2013, that she intended to represent herself pro se. (Dkt. 11). On December 19, 2013, Plaintiff was advised by the Court that she had 45 days to ...


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.