United States District Court, S.D. New York
OPINION AND ORDER
G. KOELTL, District Judge
Rengan was employed by the defendant FX Direct Dealer LLC
(“FXDD”) as an Oracle Technical Analyst from
January 2007 through April 2015. Rengan brought this action
for interference with her rights under the Family Medical
Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601
et seq., after being terminated by the defendant
while on leave following the birth of her second child.
parties now move for summary judgment on the sole count in
the Complaint. For the reasons explained below, neither party
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and the motions
are therefore denied.
standard for granting summary judgment is well established.
“The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant
shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). “[T]he trial
court's task at the summary judgment motion stage of the
litigation is carefully limited to discerning whether there
are any genuine issues of material fact to be tried, not to
deciding them. Its duty, in short, is confined at this point
to issue-finding; it does not extend to
issue-resolution.” Gallo v. Prudential Residential
Servs. Ltd. P'ship, 22 F.3d 1219, 1224 (2d Cir.
1994). The moving party bears the initial burden of
“informing the district court of the basis for its
motion” and identifying the matter that “it
believes demonstrate[s] the absence of a genuine issue of
material fact.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. The
substantive law governing the case will identify the material
facts and “[o]nly disputes over facts that might affect
the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly
preclude the entry of summary judgment.” Anderson
v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
determining whether summary judgment is appropriate, the
Court must resolve all ambiguities and draw all reasonable
inferences against the moving party. See Matsushita Elec.
Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587
(1986) (citing United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369
U.S. 654, 655 (1962)); see also Gallo, 22 F.3d at
1223. Summary judgment is improper if there is any evidence
in the record from any source from which a reasonable
inference could be drawn in favor of the non-moving party.
See Chambers v. TRM Copy Ctrs. Corp., 43 F.3d 29, 37
(2d Cir. 1994).
following facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted.
plaintiff began working for FXDD as an Oracle Technical
Analyst in January 2007. FXDD Resp. to Rengan 56.1 Stmt.
her tenure at FXDD, the plaintiff's job performance was
consistently excellent. Id. ¶ 5. The plaintiff
received an Employee Handbook once on February 5, 2007, and
again on November 23, 2007. FXDD 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 3; Regnan
Resp. to FXDD 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 3; Klassen Aff. in Supp. Ex.
C. That Handbook contains a section titled “Family and
Medical Leave” which provides, as relevant here:
As required by the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, FXDD
will grant 12 weeks of unpaid leave per 12-month period to
employees who have completed one year of service and who have
worked at least 1, 250 hours in the last 12 months. . . .
Leave may be taken for the following reasons:
• The birth of a son or daughter . . .
Aff. in Supp. Ex. B at 23-24. That section also requires
employees “[w]henever possible, [to provide] at least
30 days' notice” prior to leave to be taken for the
birth of a child, and requires certification of the need for
leave. Id. at 24. The Handbook also contains a
separate section entitled “Maternity Leave Policy,
” which provides:
Maternity leave will be treated in the same manner as any
other disability leave. Please see the Human Resources
Manager for a ...