OPINION & ORDER On or about December 7, 2017, Plaintiff Michelle Melendez (“Plaintiff”), a former Correctional Officer trainee at the Westchester County Department of Corrections Superior Office (“DOC”), commenced this action under: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-2000e-17, the American Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et. seq. (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §1983, New York State Human Rights Law Executive Law §296, and Tortious Interference under New York State Tort Law. (See Complaint (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1; Amended Complaint, (“AC”), ECF No. 31.) Plaintiff alleges that while a trainee, she was subject to sex/gender discrimination, disability discrimination, sexual harassment, a hostile work environment, retaliation, and wrongful termination by the County of Westchester, Westchester County Department of Corrections Superior Office, and KEVIN CHEVERKO (collectively, “Defendants”). Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 37.) For the following reasons, Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.BACKGROUNDThe following facts are derived from the Complaint and are assumed to be true for the purposes of this motion.1In or around September 2015, Defendants hired Plaintiff for a Correctional Officer position at Defendants’ correctional facility located at 10 Wood Road, Valhalla, New York 10595. (AC 13.) Plaintiff was a State Corrections Officer for approximately seven years prior to her employment with Defendants. (Id. 14.) Around September 14, 2015, Plaintiff began employment as a Correctional Officer trainee, with a condition of completing one year of training (“probationary period.”) (Id. 15.) Around March 28, 2016, Plaintiff was involved in a car accident. (Id. 16.) Plaintiff returned to work on April 21, 2016. (Id. 16.) Upon Plaintiff’s return to work, Plaintiff requested disability-based accommodation and submitted medical documentation to Defendants. (Id. 16.) Plaintiff was granted a “light duty” restriction, which required Plaintiff to have limited inmate contact. (Id. 16.) Plaintiff was the only female Correction Officer serving a probationary period at that time. (Id. 17.)Around June 16, 2016, Defendants assigned Plaintiff to Defendants’ 1-K Control Room (“Control Room”), which is located before the entrance of the 1-K Cell Block in the section of the correctional facility identified as “Old Jail.” (Id. 18.) Defendant’s Control Room does not fully limit inmate contact, as a corrections officer is required to maintain traffic control through the 1-K Block hallway gate. (Id. 19.)On or about June 15, 2016, one of Plaintiff’s inmates (“Inmate”) “aggressively grabbed Plaintiffs buttocks.” (Id. 20.) Immediately after, officers restrained Inmate. (Id. 21.) While Plaintiff was waiting for Defendants’ Emergency Response Team’s arrival, Inmate shouted profanity and lewd comments at Plaintiff. (Id. 22.) Plaintiff, upset and emotional, screamed profanity back at the inmate and threw her latex gloves in Inmate’s face. (Id. 23.) Defendants’ employee and Sergeant witnessed Plaintiff’s behavior and verbally counseled Plaintiff, who immediately apologized for her “impetuous and unexpected reaction.” (Id. 24.)Around June 16, 2016, Plaintiff filled paperwork to file outside charges against Inmate; however, Plaintiff admits that she is uncertain as to whether those documents were ever processed. (Id. 25.) Around August 22, 2016, Defendants interrogated Plaintiff on her supposed use of force in response to Inmate’s conduct in grabbing her buttocks. (Id. 27.) In response, Plaintiff asked Defendants if she was being penalized “for the inmate sexually assaulting her.” (Id. 28.) On or about that same day, Defendants purportedly denied Plaintiff a salary increment that would have been due on October 1, 2016 because she was under investigation for the use of force when Inmate sexually assaulted her. (Id. 29.) Male corrections officers, who were supposedly also under investigation for the use of force, did not have their salary increment denied. (Id. 30.) For this reason, Plaintiff believes that she was discriminated and retaliated against. (Id.
31-32.)On September 1, 2016, Defendants terminated Plaintiff before the end of her probationary period. (AC 33.) Plaintiff’s Union Representative discussed with Plaintiff the possibility of ending her employment with Defendants by resignation instead of termination, explaining that if Plaintiff ended her employment by resignation, she would be able to receive a law enforcement position in the future. (AC 33.) Defendants were aware of Plaintiff’s conversation with her Union Representative and allowed Plaintiff to resign on September 2, 2016 instead of terminating her. (Id.
