United States District Court, W.D. New York
For Steven Moran, Plaintiff: Ryan Charles Woodworth, LEAD ATTORNEY, The Woodworth Law Firm, Rochester, NY.
For Wegmans Food Markets, Inc., Defendant: Michael Hausknecht, LEAD ATTORNEY, Nixon Peabody LLP, Rochester, NY.
DECISION AND ORDER
DAVID G. LARIMER, United States District Judge.
Plaintiff Steven Moran (" Moran" ) brings this action alleging that defendant Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. (" Wegmans" ) discriminated against him with respect to his employment in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (" ADA" ), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. and the New York
Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 296.
Moran has been employed since in or about 1996 by Wegmans as a truck driver. On or about November 26, 2011, Moran filed a discrimination complaint against Wegmans with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (" EEOC" ), alleging that Wegmans had refused to permit him to take time off of work as a reasonable accommodation for his disability, testicular cancer.
Moran alleges that the EEOC investigated his claims (the result of that investigation is not specified), and that on April 4, 2013, the EEOC issued him a " 90-day right to sue" letter. This action followed. In his complaint, Moran amplifies the claims he made before the EEOC with the following additional allegations: (1) in or about April 2011, Moran began working closely with Wegmans' Human Resources department to " address his need to take off certain days of work due to his ongoing medical condition as a reasonable accommodation" ; (2) on or about August 7, 2011, Moran began feeling ill and left work to visit his physician; (3) later in the day, Moran's physician faxed a message to Wegmans stating that Moran would need to be out of work for the next three days; and (4) on August 10, 2011, plaintiff returned to work, but was sent home after being informed that he would spend the day on suspension for violating Wegmans' attendance policy. (Dkt. #1 at ¶ ¶ 20-23).
Wegmans now moves to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6), on the grounds that Moran's complaint fails to state a cause of action for disability-based discrimination or retaliation. (Dkt. #4). For the reasons set forth below, the motion to dismiss is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
I. Standard for Deciding a Motion to Dismiss
In deciding a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6), the Court's review is limited to the complaint, and those documents attached to the complaint or incorporated therein by reference. See Newman & Schwartz v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., 102 F.3d 660, 662 (2d Cir. 1996). The Court must " accept the allegations ...