ORDER Adopting Report & Recommendation I. Introduction Plaintiff Sally Donadio (“Plaintiff”) commenced this this employment discrimination action pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”) against Defendants Velis Associates, Inc. (hereafter, the “Company”) and Glenn Mastroberti (hereafter, “Manager”; together with Company, the “Defendants”), asserting claims of disability discrimination, as well as aider and abettor liability under NYSHRL (hereafter, the “Action”). (See Complaint (ECF No. 1).) In response and pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Defendants moved to dismiss the Action in its entirety with prejudice (hereafter, the “Dismissal Motion”) (see ECF No. 14), which the Plaintiff opposed (hereafter, the “Opposition” or “Opp’n”) (see ECF No. 15-4). The Motion was referred to Magistrate Gary R. Brown. (See Apr. 12, 2019 Electronic Referral Order.) On July 18, 2019, Magistrate Judge Brown delivered his Report and Recommendation (“the Report”) from the bench (see Electronic Report and Recommendation, filed July 18, 2019 (hereafter, the “Electronic R&R”)); see also Report Tr. (ECF No. 24)), recommending that Defendant’s Dismissal Motion be “granted on the sole ground of the failure to allege and/or attach in the [C]omplaint, the EEOC right to sue letter” (Report Tr., 17:23-25; see also Electronic R&R), and “that [P]laintiff be given 30 days to amend her complaint.” (Id., 18:1-2; see also Electronic R&R.) The Electronic R&R further advised the parties, inter alia, that “[a]ny written objections to th[e] Report…must be filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days of service of this [R]eport.” (Electronic R&R.) On July 19, 2019, Defendants filed their objection to the Report (hereafter, “Objection”). (See ECF No. 25.) Plaintiff did not file any response (see Case Docket, in toto), but rather, on August 15, 2019, filed a First Amended Complaint (hereafter, “FAC”). (See ECF No. 28.) For the reasons that follow, the Court adopts the recommendations made in the Report. II. Background A. Plaintiff’s Complaint1 Plaintiff commenced this action against Defendants asserting discrimination under the ADA based upon her prior breast cancer, which was in remission and which “predisposed [her] to future cancerous instances because of her prior diagnosis.” (See Complaint,
3, 4, 14.) She alleged that after working for the Defendants for approximately a month as an administrative assistant, “she began experiencing signs of uterine cancer.” (See id.,
