MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff Kristina Mikhaylova brings this eighteen-count action against her former employer and its affiliates — Bloomingdale’s, Inc.; Bloomingdale’s, Inc. d/b/a Bloomingdale’s and Forty Carrots; Bloomingdale’s, LLC; Bloomingdale’s, LLC d/b/a Bloomingdale’s New York (collectively, “Bloomingdale’s”); Macy’s, Inc. and Macy’s, Inc. d/b/a Macy’s Of New York (together, “Macy’s”) — and individuals Christopher Castellani, a Loss Prevention Manager (together with Bloomingdale’s and Macy’s, “Defendants”), and Richard Law, a Human Resources Manager. As to Bloomingdale’s and Macy’s, Plaintiff alleges pregnancy and/or sex-based discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, failure to accommodate, and interference with protected rights in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), the American with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq. (“ADA”), the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. §2601 et seq. (“FMLA”), the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law §290 et seq. (“NYSHRL”), the New York City Administrative Code §8-107 (“NYCHRL”). (Amended Complaint (“FAC”), ECF No. 21,
110-193.) For the individual defendants, Plaintiff only asserts its claims arising under NYSHRL and NYCHRL. (Id.) Before this Court is Defendants’ motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, seeking dismissal of all of Plaintiff’s claims. (Defs.’ Mot. For Summ. J., ECF No. 104.) Defendants’ motion is GRANTED.1 I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise indicated. Plaintiff began working for Bloomingdale’s as a sales employee in the Chanel Handbag Department at their 59th street location on or around the beginning of May 2016. (Joint Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (“Joint SUMF”), ECF No. 137, 1.) Plaintiff signed a “Statement of Awareness” as part of her onboarding process acknowledging that Bloomingdale’s had policies (1) outlawing selling to known resellers, (2) limiting general merchandise purchases to 12 units per merchandise category within 90 days, and (3) limiting purchases of Chanel handbags to four per month and no more than 24 per year. (Gerber Decl. in Support of Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J., (“Gerber Decl.”), ECF No. 107, Ex L; Ex. M at BLM000380.) Plaintiff acquired a credit account with Bloomingdale’s with which she purchased merchandise sold at Bloomingdale’s and received an employee discount on each purchase. (See Gerber Decl., Ex. K.) This credit account was subject to Bloomingdale’s discount policy, which forbid (among other things) purchasing an item and receiving reimbursement by another. (Decl. of Becker in Support of Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J., (“Becker Decl.”), ECF No. 108, Ex. I at BLM002041.) Plaintiff experienced tardiness issues in January 2017, with seven documented instances of tardiness in January alone. (Joint SUMF 23.) Plaintiff became pregnant at some point between February 15 and March 15 in 2017. (Id. 37.) In February 2017, Bloomingdale’s Central Asset Protection group learned through Macy’s Credit and Customer Service division, which manages Bloomingdale’s branded credit card, that Plaintiff had rung up over $67,000 of fraudulent “send” transactions in just five days. (Id. 65.) “Send” transactions are orders made by phone and then shipped to customers. (Id.) Plaintiff used what is referred to as the memo order process to process these transactions, whereby Plaintiff manually completed a form with the customer’s name, the address where the merchandise was to be shipped, the merchandise ordered, and the credit card information. (Id.
