OPINION & ORDER Plaintiff Mandip Singh (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against her former employer, Defendant Knuckles, Komosinski & Manfro, LLP (“KKM”), and Defendant Debbie Bhoorasingh (together with KKM, “Defendants”), alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq., and the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), New York Executive Law §290, et seq. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges Defendants unlawfully terminated her due to her pregnancy and gender. Presently before the Court is Defendants’ motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. (ECF No. 36.) For the following reasons, Defendants’ motion is DENIED. BACKGROUND The following pertinent facts are derived from the parties’ respective Local Rule 56.1 statements and the record and are undisputed unless otherwise indicated. Defendant’s Pre-Pregnancy Employment On October 31, 2016, Plaintiff began employment with KKM as a clerk in the Evictions Department. (Defs’ Local Rule 56.1 Statement (“Def. 56.1″) (ECF No. 40) 2; Pl.’s Response to Def. 56.1 (“Pl. 56.1 Resp.”) (ECF No. 45) 2.) On January 10, 2017, Plaintiff was reassigned to the Foreclosure Sales Department. (Id.) Plaintiff’s hourly rate remained the same in her new role. (Id.) The parties dispute the reason for Plaintiff’s reassignment. According to Defendant Bhoorasingh, the reassignment was “due to inter personnel issues with other members of the eviction staff [and because] the staff was not working together cohesively due to Plaintiff’s excessive absences and failure to complete her duties in a timely manner.” (Declaration of Debbie Bhoorasingh (“Bhoorasingh Decl.”) 2.) However, Plaintiff testified that she had no problems with any of her co-workers while working in the Evictions Department. (Deposition of Mandip Singh (“Singh Dep.”) 25:20-22). Further, Defendant Bhoorasingh testified that the alleged conflicts were between all members of the team. (Deposition of Debbie Bhoorasingh (“Bhoorasingh Dep.”) 44:12-20.) At the time of the reassignment, Plaintiff had worked at KKM for approximately two-and-a-half months and had been absent from work twice and left early once.1 Plaintiff testified that she had volunteered to help with the Sales Department when the Evictions Department was slow. (Pl. Ex. E at Pl. Dep. 26:4-27:3.) Under KKM policy, after ninety days of employment, all employees are entitled to thirteen days’ unpaid leave during each calendar year. (Def. 56.1 3; Pl. 56.1 Resp. 3.) Prior to ninety days of employment, employees are only eligible for unpaid leave. (Id.) From Plaintiff’s first day of employment on October 31, 2016, through January 18, 2017, Plaintiff was absent or left work early a total of six times and was not compensated accordingly.2 (Def. 56.1 4; Pl. 56.1 Resp. 4.) On or about February 3, 2017, Defendant Bhoorasingh held a meeting with Plaintiff’s supervisor and the foreclosure staff to discuss, among other things, Plaintiff’s performance.3 (Def. 56.1
11; Pl. 56.1 Resp.
