OPINION AND ORDERI. Introduction Plaintiff moves for an Order pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure granting leave to file a second amended complaint (Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion and Motion for Leave to Amend Her Complaint; Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof, dated Sept. 9, 2018 (Docket Item (“D.I.”) 79) (“Pl. Memo.”)). For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted in part and denied in part. II. BackgroundA. FactsThis is an employment discrimination/retaliation action. Plaintiff was employed by defendant The Permanent Mission of Chile to the United Nations (“the Mission”) as a secretary from July 6, 2015 until June 30, 2017 (Proposed Second Amended Complaint, annexed to Pl. Memo, as Ex. 1 (D.I. 79-1) (“SAC”)
18, 65). Plaintiff alleges that during her employment at the Mission, she was a victim of discrimination on the basis of sex and consistently harassed by Ambassador Cristian Barros, Ambassador Carlos Olguin and Chief of Administration Ernesto Gonzalez (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”) (Facts Pertaining to Plaintiff’s EEOC Complaint, undated, annexed to Amended Complaint (“Am. Compl.”) (D.I. 4) (“EEOC Facts”) at 1-8).Plaintiff alleges that this harassment began during her initial interview with the Mission on May 21, 2015 when Olguin asked her multiple questions concerning her then pending divorce proceedings, which made her feel uncomfortable (EEOC Facts at 1). After she was hired on July 6, 2015, plaintiff alleges that Olguin frequently asked her about her dating life and, on one occasion, he insisted on rubbing hand lotion on her (EEOC Facts at 1-2). In January 2016, Olguin also told plaintiff that a female employee who worked in a different office had “outstanding physical assets” such as “big breasts and [a] big buttocks” and that all the men in that office “were drooling for her” (EEOC at 1). Plaintiff alleges that she later learned that this same female employee was also a divorcee and had filed a formal complaint of harassment against Olguin (EEOC Facts at 1). Plaintiff further alleges that after she asked Olguin to stop his offensive behavior, he began unfairly reprimanding her for trivial things, such as speaking to diplomats in “informal Spanish” (EEOC at 2-3). On March 6, 2017, plaintiff alleges that Barros gave her a negative performance evaluation based on false or unsubstantiated facts, and that Barros, Olguin and Gonzalez created a “hostile work environment” for plaintiff from that point until she was terminated on June 30, 2017 (EEOC Facts at 5-8).Plaintiff also contends that she was treated unfairly because Gonzalez required her to produce a “disability notice” from her doctor when she reported sick on October 13, 2016 and February 10, 2017, while other employees were not required to produce such supporting documentation (EEOC Facts at 4-5).B. Procedural HistoryPlaintiff commenced this action pro se on December 26, 2017 when she filed a form “Employment Discrimination Complaint” alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e et sea. (“Title VII”) and the Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. §§2601 et seq. (“FMLA”) (Complaint, dated Dec. 26, 2017 (D.I. 2) (“Compl.”) at 3-4). A few days later on January 2, 2018, plaintiff filed an amended form complaint (see Am. Compl.). The main difference between these two complaints is that plaintiff attached her EEOC complaint paperwork to her amended complaint, which provided more detail with respect to her discrimination and harassment allegations against defendants. In addition, although plaintiff’s amended complaint listed the Mission as a defendant in the caption, she did not list the Mission as a party in the section entitled “Defendant Information” as she had in her initial complaint (Am. Compl. at 2-3).On January 22, 2018, the Honorable Analisa Torres, United States District Judge, construed plaintiff’s amended complaint as also alleging violations of the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law §§296 et seq. (“NYSHRL”) and the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§8-107 et seq. (“NYCHRL”) (Order, dated Jan. 22, 2018 (D.I. 9)).On April 5, 2018, Zein E. Obagi, Esq. entered a notice of appearance on behalf of plaintiff (Notice of Appearance of Counsel for Plaintiff, dated Apr. 4, 2018 (D.I. 24)). Mr. Obagi then filed a pre-motion letter on August 2, 2018 stating plaintiff’s intention to amend her complaint and subsequently filed the present motion on September 9, 2018 (Letter to the Honorable Analisa Torres from Zein E. Obagi, Esq., dated Aug. 2, 2018 (D.I. 73); PI. Memo.).C. Proposed Second Amended ComplaintPlaintiff’s proposed second amended complaint provides significantly more detail with respect to her claims of harassment and discrimination (SAC
