OPINION & ORDER Plaintiff Tabitha Lulo (“Lulo”), was employed by defendant OTG Management, LLC (“OTG”) from March 2015 to November 2017. In 2017, Lulo was pregnant and, after giving birth, took Federal Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) leave. Approximately one month after returning to work, she was terminated from OTG in a company-wide Reduction-in-Force (“RIF”). Lulo brings retaliation and discrimination claims against OTG under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. §2601 et seq., New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law, §290 et seq. (“NYSHRL”), and the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code, §8-101 et seq. (“NYCHRL”). Pending now is OTG’s motion for summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, the Court grants the motion. I. Background A. Factual Background1 1. The Parties2 Lulo is a former employee of OTG. Def. 56.1 1; Depol Decl. 3. As of the filing of her opposition to summary judgment, Lulo was a 37-year-old woman, residing in Rockland County, New York. Pl. 56.1 48. OTG is a limited liability company organized under Delaware law. Def. 56.1 3. OTG is owned by three separate entities, one of which is OTG Management, Inc. Depol Decl. 3. OTG owns and operates restaurants and concessions in airport terminals throughout the United States, including in airports in New York (LaGuardia and JFK) and New Jersey (Newark). It maintains a corporate office in New York City. Def. 56.1 4. 2. Lulo’s Employment By OTG Lulo was employed by OTG from on or about March 16, 2015 through on or about November 13, 2017. Id. 6. Lulo was a “senior cash auditor,” and was the only person employed in that position during her employment. Id. 7. Lulo’s starting annual salary was $68,000. Pl. 56.1 51. Lulo reported directly to Tom Iacopelli (“Iacopelli”), who was OTG’s Senior Vice President of Finance. Def. 56.1 8. Lulo did not have a physical office; she traveled to airport terminals to perform her duties. Id. 9. Lulo was primarily responsible for auditing cash and cash-related transactions at OTG’s airport terminals. Id. 10. 3. Lulo’s Pregnancy and Maternity Leave In or about January 2017, Lulo learned she was pregnant. Id. 11. In February 2017, Lulo told Iacopelli that she was pregnant. Id. 12. Iacopelli did not express any negative reaction, and congratulated Lulo on her pregnancy. Id.; Schmidt Decl., Ex. A at 19. No one at OTG ever made any derogatory or inappropriate comment to Lulo about her pregnancy. Def. 56.1 13. Lulo did not have any difficulties performing her job duties during her pregnancy. Id. 14. Approximately one to two weeks before she gave birth, Lulo announced to Iacopelli that she would be taking maternity leave after delivery. Id.
15, 16. Iacopelli did not indicate to Lulo that he took issue with her taking such leave. Id. 17. No one at OTG ever made a derogatory comment about, or indicated any issue with, Lulo taking maternity leave. Id. 18. On July 5, 2017, Lulo delivered her baby. Id. 19. On July 6, 2017, Lulo submitted her maternity leave request form, with an approved anticipated return-to-work date of September 28, 2017. Id. 20. However, Lulo began to suffer from postpartum depression, and was unable to return to work on that date. Id. 21. Lulo therefore told Iacopelli that her doctor had extended her leave for a few additional weeks, and that she would return to work on October 23, 2017. Id. 22. Iacopelli never indicated that he had any issue with Lulo extending her maternity leave. Id. 23; Schmidt Decl., Ex. A at 45. No one at OTG ever made any derogatory comment about, or indicated any problem with, Lulo’s extended leave. Def. 56.1 24. Lulo’s maternity leave extension request was approved. Id. 25. On October 23, 2017, Lulo returned to work in the same role as before her leave began. Id. 26. After her return, no one at OTG made any comments to Lulo regarding her maternity leave or her gender. Id.
