OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Wallesca Penz brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 against defendant Leroy Fields, alleging violations of her constitutional right to access the courts and her Fourteenth Amendment right to be free from discrimination as a public employee. Now pending is defendant’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (Doc. #19). For the reasons set forth below, the motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331. BACKGROUND For the purpose of ruling on the motion to dismiss, the Court accepts as true all well-pleaded factual allegations in the amended complaint and draws all reasonable inferences in plaintiff’s favor, as set forth below. Plaintiff worked as a correction officer at Fishkill Correctional Facility (“Fishkill”), where defendant Leroy Fields was, at all times relevant to this action, the superintendent. In June 2018, plaintiff filed suit in this Court against Fishkill Lieutenant Al Washer, alleging he sexually harassed her. See generally Penz v. Washer, 2019 WL 1922040, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2019). Plaintiff alleges she filed suit against Washer after “years of complaining about his conduct to superiors at [Fishkill]” and “ repeated requests” to defendant for help. (Doc. #18 (“Am. Compl.”)
4, 6). According to plaintiff, defendant “took no steps” to investigate or punish Washer for his alleged harassment. (Id. 6). Plaintiff alleges an inmate attacked her on February 7, 2019, while she was on duty at Fishkill, causing her to suffer a concussion, and that she was out of work for six months on full salary. Plaintiff claims her doctor cleared her to return to work “light duty” in July 2019. (Am. Compl. 11). However, she contends defendant refused to allow her to return to work and, as a result, she received half pay starting in August 2019. Plaintiff also alleges defendant allowed “other similarly situated correction[] officers who had suffered work-related injuries,” but who had not filed lawsuits charging sexual harassment by superior officers, to return to work on light duty. (Id. 12). Namely, plaintiff claims defendant permitted Correction Officer Feijoo, who suffered disabling back, shoulder, and knee injuries from a similar inmate attack, but who never filed a gender-discrimination lawsuit, to return to work light duty after five months and full duty six weeks later. Plaintiff claims that, in or around April 2020, two doctors cleared her to return to work full duty effective June 1, 2020. Plaintiff alleges she wrote to defendant on May 20, 2020, to explain she was cleared to return to work light duty, to inform him of her pending lawsuit against Washer, and to request that she be separated from Washer and another officer when she returned to work. She further alleges she was provided documentation from Fishkill on May 21, 2020, which reflected plaintiff “was set to return to work light duty on June 1, 2020.” (Am. Compl. 18). However, according to plaintiff, rather than permitting her to return to work, defendant arranged for plaintiff to be examined by Employee Health Services (“EHS”). Plaintiff asserts this examination was “irregular and not routine[]” for employees who offer medical evidence of their fitness to return to work. (Id. 21). Ultimately, plaintiff contends scheduling this examination was “a means of delaying, and erecting an obstacle to, [her] return to work.” (Id. 22). According to plaintiff, she appeared for her EHS examination on June 30, 2020, during which she explained she was no longer suffering symptoms from the attack. However, on July 20, 2020, plaintiff was informed that the EHS doctor who examined her declared she was unfit for duty. Plaintiff was not provided any further explanation. She alleges the “mere arrangement” of the EHS exam was a “signal[]” from defendant to EHS that defendant did not want plaintiff to be medically cleared to return to work. (Am. Compl. 22). Next, plaintiff alleges an orthopedist examined her for the Workers’ Compensation Board on July 23, 2020. The orthopedist recommended plaintiff receive a functional capacity evaluation to determine whether she could resume regular duties, and he “noted that plaintiff would be able to resume full-time employment on October 23, 2020.” (Am. Compl.
