OPINION & ORDER Plaintiff Kim Marshall brings this action against Defendants Westchester Medical Center Health Network (“WMCHN”), Carlos Robinson, and Vanessa Mackay (together, “Defendants”). (First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), ECF No. 22.) Plaintiff asserts claims under (1) the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. §§2601, et seq., (2) the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq., and (3) the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), N.Y. Exec. Law §290 et seq., alleging discriminatory and retaliatory conduct stemming from her request for FMLA leave and her disability. (Id.) Presently before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (ECF No. 33.) For the following reasons, Defendants’ motion is granted in part and denied in part. BACKGROUND The below facts are drawn from the FAC and are assumed true for purposes of this motion. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A. Plaintiff Joins WMCHN as a Patient Account Manager In June 2019, Plaintiff joined WMCHN as a Patient Accounts Manager, overseeing a staff of four direct reports and fifty indirect reports. (SAC 20.) In October 2019, Plaintiff was promoted to Patient Access Manager by the Patient Access Director. (Id. 21.) In this role, Plaintiff was given heightened responsibility, and was responsible for “overseeing patient pre-registration, insurance verification, scheduling, authorization, and financial counseling for both inpatient and outpatient services at Westchester Medical Center (“WMC”) and Mid-Hudson Regional Hospital (“MHRH”).” (Id.) On December 20, 2019, Plaintiff received her first performance evaluation with a “meet/exceed expectations” rating, her accomplishments were “unquestioned” and she was rated as “successful” in her job responsibilities. (Id.
22-23.) At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020, Plaintiff’s responsibilities increased — both her and her staff had to cover COVID-19 testing tents and off-site vaccination “pods” in addition to their normal responsibilities. (Id. 24.) Plaintiff raised concerns about her staff being stretched too thin to Vanessa Mackay, Vice President of Revenue Cycle, who told Plaintiff she had to “make it work.” (Id. 25.) In June 2021, Plaintiff started reporting to Carlos Robinson, Regional Director of Patient Access. (Id. 26.) B. Plaintiff Requests Her First FMLA Leave and Reasonable Accommodation for Her Disability Plaintiff “suffers from debilitating arthritis, chronic pain, and limited range of motion in her legs and hips, which makes it exceedingly difficult for her to get dressed, walk any meaningful distances, and sleep.” (Id. 27.) She also “takes pain medication and various dietary supplements to help regain her energy due to her lack of sleep.” (Id. 28.) Because her arthritis “hinder[ed] her ability to make rounds and supervise staff, sit and work for long periods of time, and commute to WMCHN’s sites in Valhalla and MHRH in Poughkeepsie,” Plaintiff was impeded in her ability to do her job. (Id. 28.) Plaintiff also had to purchase a standing desk to perform her work due to the limitations caused by her arthritis. (Id.). In mid-June 2021, Plaintiff and her physician determined that to alleviate her pain she needed two surgeries, a total arthroplasty on each hip, scheduled at least three months apart to allow her time to properly heal. (Id. 29.) On or about June 28, 2021, Plaintiff requested FMLA leave for her to undergo the first surgery. (Id. 30.) In July 2021, Plaintiff was approved to take FMLA leave from August 9, 2021 through October 4, 2021. (Id. 31.) On October 7, 2021, Plaintiff returned to work. (Id. 33.) On November 30, 2021, Plaintiff received “a far more critical and negative” performance evaluation than the prior one she received. (Id. 34.) Plaintiff was rated as “meet expectations,” but Robinson told her she “needed improvement” with “staff management.” (Id.) Robinson gave only vague examples and guidance on how to improve and gave criticisms of her performance without providing further details. (Id.) Concerned with the ambiguous criticisms in her performance evaluation, Plaintiff requested bi-weekly meetings with Robinson to ensure his confidence in her ability to lead and achieve her goals. (Id. 35.) Plaintiff and Robinson met several times over the next two months, but at no point during that time did Robinson raise any concerns with Plaintiff’s performance or offer her guidance on how to improve. (Id. 37.) Prior to taking FMLA leave, neither Robinson or any other supervisor gave Plaintiff any indication that they were unhappy with her performance. (Id. 36.) C. Plaintiff Experiences Symptoms Related to Her Disability at Work, Defendants Fail to Accommodate Her On or about December 9, 2021, while working at MHRH, Plaintiff experienced a medical emergency causing her to leave work, and she was later diagnosed with a bleeding ulcer. (Id. 38.) During this time, Plaintiff “noticeably walked around work with a limp and abnormal gait.” (Id. 39.) On or about December 14, 2021, Plaintiff fell to the ground at work, which caused her to badly injury her leg and exacerbated her arthritis pain in her left hip. (Id.) Despite being aware of Plaintiff’s arthritis diagnosis, the severity of her symptoms, and that her disability impeded her ability to work, neither Robinson or Mackay “engaged in the interactive process to determine whether a reasonable accommodation would permit Plaintiff to better perform her job functions.” (Id. 40.) D. Plaintiff Receives a Performance Improvement Plan (“PIP”) On January 28, 2022, Defendants placed Plaintiff on a Performance Improvement Plan (“PIP”). “Upon [her] information and belief,” Defendants did not follow WMCHN protocol or formal disciplinary process before issuing the PIP. (Id. 42.) Further, “upon [her] information and belief,” Robinson and Mackay spearheaded and had to approve the PIP. (Id. 45.) As a result of being placed on a PIP, Plaintiff became ineligible to receive a raise or promotion while on the PIP and for six months after; additionally, the PIP would be added to Plaintiff’s personnel file, which could impact Plaintiff’s ability to change roles or receive promotions within the WMCHN. (Id.
