DECISION & ORDER Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. See dkt. # 5. The parties have briefed the issues and the Court has determined to resolve the matter without oral argument. I. BACKGROUND This case arises out of Plaintiff Karen Herbowy-Hubalek’s employment with Defendants Lithia of Yorkville-3, LLC, Lithia Motors, Inc., and Lithia Motors Support Services, Inc. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated her rights by sexually harassing her and discriminating against her because of her disability. She also alleges that Defendants retaliated against her when she complained about this treatment. She brings claims pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and New York anti-discrimination law. Plaintiff began working for the Defendants on October 1, 2018. Complaint (“Complt.”), dkt. # 1, at 10. She served as a Dealership Accountant. Id. She alleges that she “was a qualified employee and performed her work satisfactorily.” Id. at 23. Before she started working for the Defendants, Plaintiff “was disagnosed with Barrett’s Disease, which is sometimes referred to as Barrett’s Esophagus.” Id. at 24. Plaintiff alleges that Barrett’s Disease “is a physical impairment that substantially limits one or more of her major life activities, including but not limited to” Plaintiff’s “eating, swallowing, and digesting.” Id. The disease also “substantially impairs one or more major bodily functions, including, but not limited to,” Plaintiff’s “neck function and digestion function.” Id. Because of her health condition, Plaintiff “would periodically suffer from chest pain, difficulty swallowing and digesting food properly (and therefore trouble eating), nausea and vomiting” when she ate. Id. at 25. Before she started working for the Defendants, Plaintiff underwent gastric bypass surgery as part of her treatment for Barrett’s Disease. Id. at 27. The surgery was successful “to some extent,” but limitations to Plaintiff’s major life activities continued. Id. Plaintiff needed “to continue treatment for her disability for the foreseeable future.” Id. During the time period relevant to this case, Plaintiff “took various supplements to address or mitigate her…symptoms, including, but not limited to, low blood sugar and vitamin deficiencies caused by her disability.” Id. While Defendants were not aware of Plaintiff’s health condition when they hired her, Defendants learned of that condition. Id. at
30-31. Defendants provided employees with lunches, but Plaintiff did not participate. Id. at 31. W hen asked by other employees why she did not join the lunches, Plaintiff explained that “she had certain disability-related dietary restrictions.” Id. Plaintiff alleges that her “disability was known throughout the office” and Defendants and their “employees perceived” Plaintiff “as disabled.” Id. at 32. Plaintiff took her supplements at work on or around January 4, 2019. Id. at 33. Such conduct was not unusual for Plaintiff; she “took these supplements routinely.” Id. Defendants knew “that these supplements were related to her disability.” Id. When other employees saw Plaintiff taking the supplements, “several” of them “began engaging in harassing and hostile behavior.” Id. at 34. “[S]everal co-workers and managers began” to taunt Plaintiff. Id. Though she explained why she took the supplements, these coworkers and managers “shockingly accused her of taking illegal narcotics at work (which she clearly was not doing).” Id. Plaintiff found these allegations “deeply insulting.” Id. at 35. She alleges that the allegation came “in an effort to embarrass and/or humiliate” Plaintiff “related to her disability in a public manner.” Id. Jason Jackson, Defendants’ Finance and Insurance Manager, and two other employees, John Fry and Dustin Fuller, forced Plaintiff to remain in a downstairs location away from her desk “while other employees inappropriately searched through” Plaintiff’s “personal items upstairs.” Id. at 36. At the direction of Jackson, Fry, and Fuller, other employees “opened and searched through” Plaintiff’s “purse, which was located at” her “personal desk.” Id. at 37. Plaintiff did not provide permission for this search. Id. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in this conduct out of “an attempt to harass” the Plaintiff “because of her disability.” Id. at 40. Accusing her of using narcotics, Plaintiff alleges, was both false and “clearly discriminatory and harassing in nature” because Plaintiff’s “disability related symptoms…required her to utilize the supplements.” Id. at 41. On January 8, 2019, Plaintiff attempted to contact Heather Lucia, one of her supervisors and manager of the Accounting Department, to express her concern about the harassment and discrimination she had allegedly faced. Id. at 42. Lucia was out of town. Id. Instead, Plaintiff contacted Karen Flynn, who was talent acquisition lead in the Human Resources Department. Id. at 44. Plaintiff described her disability and requested that she be able to take her supplements during the workday without facing harassment and hostility from her co-workers and managers. Id. Plaintiff contends that “[t]his request was supposedly granted.” Id. at 45. Plaintiff also raised concerns about the search of her purse that had occurred recently.1 Id. at 46. Plaintiff explained to Flynn that Jack, Fry, Fuller, and the others had harassed her because of her disability. Id. at 47. She alleges that she told Flynn that those persons had accused her of taking narcotics when they knew she was taking supplements. Id. These persons also went through her things without her permission. Id. Plaintiff told Flynn that they engaged in this conduct “in a clearly discriminatory and harassing manner.” Id. Flynn responded by telling Plaintiff to contact Cyrstal Guzzardo, Defendants’ “HR Business Partner/PHR.” Id. at 48. Flynn told Plaintiff she would forward Plaintiff’s concerns to Guzzardo, but Plaintiff “did not receive any further communication from Ms. Guzzardo.” Id. at 51. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants did not investigate or address her concerns “in a meaningful manner.” Id. at 52. The persons about whom she complained did not receive any “meaningful” discipline. Id. The harassment and discrimination did not end, but instead got worse. Id. On February 22, 2019, for instance, employees again went through Plaintiff’s personal items, including her purse, without Plaintiff’s permission. Id. Plaintiff alleges that this conduct came in retaliation for her complaints about discrimination. Id. Plaintiff further alleges that, around the same time, employees stole her personal items and hid them in different locations in the office. Id. She contends they went through her wallet, which contained personal and private information, including information concerning insurance and bank routing. Id. at 53. This conduct, Plaintiff claims, occurred because of her disability, since it “mimicked (and escalated) the prior harassment that had occurred after” Plaintiff “disclosed to other employees that she was taking disability-related supplements.” Id. at 54. Plaintiff complained about this conduct to Geoff Gill, Director of Human Resources, but the company did not offer a “meaningful response.” Id. at 55. Plaintiff also alleges that some of Defendants’ employees sexually harassed her and created a hostile environment. See
