MEMORANDUM & ORDER Plaintiff Sarsvatkumar Patel brings this action against Defendant Long Island University (“LIU”). (Compl. (Dkt. 1).) Plaintiff asserts claims of retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 §U.S.C. §§2000e et seq.; the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), N.Y. Exec. Law §§290 et seq.; and the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”), N.Y. City Admin. Code §§8-101 et seq. Plaintiff also asserts claims of retaliation and interference under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. §§2601 et seq. Defendant moves for summary judgment on all claims. (Def. Mot. For Summ. J. (Dkt. 35); Mem. in Support of Mot. for Summ. J. (“Mem.”) (Dkt. 39); Reply (Dkt. 46).) Plaintiff opposes the motion. (Mem. in Opp. to Def. Mot. for Summ. J. (“Opp.”) (Dkt. 43).) For the reasons set out below, Defendant’s motion is DENIED. I. BACKGROUND The court constructs the following statement of facts from the parties’ Local Rule 56.1 Statements and the admissible evidence they submitted. Except where otherwise noted, the following facts are undisputed. Where the parties allege different facts, the court notes the dispute and credits the Plaintiff’s version if it is supported by evidence in the record. All evidence is construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party with all “reasonable inferences” drawn in its favor. ING Bank N.V. v. M/V Temara, IMO No. 9333929, 892 F.3d 511, 518 (2d Cir. 2018). LIU maintains both an “Anti-Harassment/Discrimination Policy & Complaint Procedure” and a “Family & Medical Leave Act Policy and Procedure.” (Def. R. 56.1 Statement (“Df. 56.1″) (Dkt. 36)
1, 6.) The Anti-Harassment/Discrimination Policy “prohibits retaliation against a faculty member…who complains of discrimination or engages in other protected activity.” (Id. 5.) The FMLA policy includes a procedure for requesting FMLA leave. (Id. 8.) Under this procedure, an employee requesting leave must “timely inform both their supervisor and Human Resources…that they need family or medical leave and how long they expect to be absent.” (Id. 9.) After notice is given, LIU Human Resources (“HR”) provides the requesting employee with a form that “should be returned at least 30 days in advance for foreseeable leaves.” (Id. 10.) In January 2012, Plaintiff was offered a position as an Assistant Professor at the LIU College of Pharmacy’s (“CoP”) Division of Pharmaceutical Sciences (“DPS”). (Id. 48.) DPS is administered by a division director. (Id. 16.) The DPS director reports to the dean of CoP, who in turn reports to LIU’s Vice President of Academic Affairs (“VPAA”). (Id.
