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.

Khater v. API Industries Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. New York

December 21, 2017

HATEM F. KHATER, Plaintiff,
v.
API INDUSTRIES, INC. D/B/A ALUF PLASTICS, INC., Defendant.

          Hatem Khater Paterson, New Jersey Plaintiff Pro Se

          Efrem Schwalb Koffsky Schwalb LLC New York, New York Counsel for Defendant

          OPINION AND ORDER

          CATHY SEIBEL, U.S.D.J.

         Before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 51.) For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion is GRANTED.

         I. BACKGROUND

         For purposes of the motion, I accept as true the facts, but not the conclusions, as set forth in the Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 50 (“SAC”).)

         A. Facts

         Plaintiff worked at API Industries Inc., d/b/a Aluf Plastics Inc., (“API”), from June 14, 2014 to October 9, 2015. (SAC at 5.) Plaintiff alleges that his supervisor, Ahmed Issa, harassed him “constantly every day, ” stating that Plaintiff “need[s] to stay home and collect social security benefits since [he is] mental and . . . do[es]n't deserve to work.” (Id.) These comments made Plaintiff “fe[el] very uncomfortable, ” and he subsequently went out on disability. (Id.) On January 8, 2016, Plaintiff informed API that his doctor had extended his disability for one year. (Doc. 52 (“Schwalb Decl.”) Ex. B (“EEOC Charge”) at 3-4.)[1] API terminated Plaintiff's employment on March 17, 2016. (Id. at 3.)

         Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on March 25, 2016. (SAC at 6.) There, he alleged that API terminated him because his doctor extended his disability, which he listed as a “herniated disk” and “hard time focusing on work.” (EEOC Charge at 3-4.) Plaintiff also noted that he was taking medicine for a “mental condition.” (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff received a Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC dated June 8, 2016. (SAC at 6.)

         B. Procedural History

         Plaintiff filed his original complaint on August 24, 2016, (Doc. 1), and an amended complaint on October 31, 2016, (Doc. 14). This Court held a pre-motion conference on March 27, 2017, and granted Plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended Complaint by April 27, 2017. (Minute Entry dated Mar. 27, 2017.) In his SAC, filed April 5, 2017, Plaintiff brings one claim for a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., alleging that his employer subjected him to a hostile work environment because of his mental impairment. (SAC at 4-5.)

         Defendant filed the instant motion on May 18, 2017, (Doc. 51), Plaintiff filed his opposition on May 22, 2017, (Doc. 54 (“P's Opp.”)), and Defendant filed its reply on July 6, 2017, (Doc. 55). Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Motion to Deny Defendant's Motion to Dismiss” on July 11, 2017. (Doc. 56.) Plaintiff also sent numerous letters and records to the Court throughout the course of this litigation. (See Docs. 6-12, 15, 17, 20, 30, 31, 33, 36, 38-39, 41-42, 45.)

         II. LEGAL STANDARDS

         A. Moti ...


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.