DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION This case has been referred to the undersigned pursuant to Section 636(b) (1) of Title 28 of the United States Code, by the Honorable Lawrence J. Vilardo, for the determination of all pretrial matters and non-dispositive motions. (Dkt. No. 10) Before the Court is plaintiff Kimberly Gee’s motion to compel discovery. (Dkt. No. 30) For the following reasons, plaintiff’s motion is denied. BACKGROUND Pro se plaintiff Kimberly Gee, an African female, filed an amended complaint on August 10, 2023, alleging race/color discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) and the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”). (Dkt. No. 22) According to the amended complaint, plaintiff was hired by defendant Staffing Solutions Organization, LLC (“SSO”), on January 11, 2021, as a part-time contact tracer, during the COVID-19 pandemic. (Id. at 4) The position allowed for fully remote work and plaintiff alleges that, at the time she was hired, SSO allowed her to create her own weekly work schedules. (Id.) While employed by SSO, plaintiff also worked part-time at the Residence Inn by Marriott. (Id. at 5) After SSO promoted plaintiff to full-time employment, she continued to also work for Marriott two days per week. (Id.) In or around August 4, 2021, SSO promulgated new scheduling requirements, including mandates that plaintiff work a certain number of weekend shifts. (Id. at 6) Plaintiff requested that she be permitted to work from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays, in order to continue to work her part-time job for Marriott, later in the afternoon and evening, on those same days. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that while Caucasian employees were permitted to “self-schedule” their contact tracing shifts with SSO, in order to accommodate either other employment or their personal lives, her scheduling request was denied. (Id.) Plaintiff also requested that she be permitted to work some of her shifts as a contact tracer from a private hotel room at the Residence Inn, since her shifts at the hotel were scheduled to begin immediately after her shifts as a contact tracer ended. (Id. at 8) According to plaintiff, SSO allowed contact tracers to work shifts outside of their homes, and many of her Caucasian co-workers worked their shifts from hotel rooms or from a “vast array of public places on an ongoing and consistent basis.” (Id. at 9, 13) Plaintiff alleges that SSO refused to allow her the same flexibility as to her work location. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that on September 20, 2021, she reported to SSO’s human resources department that she believed she was being discriminated against on the basis of race, specifically with regard to scheduling. (Id. at 10) On September 24, 2021, plaintiff was placed on unpaid leave by SSO while defendant determined if plaintiff violated Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) requirements by working her contact-tracing shifts from a hotel room. (Id. at 13) On September 28, 2021, plaintiff filed a charge of race discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). (Id. at 16) Also on September 28, 2021, SSO completed its investigation and determined that plaintiff had not violated HIPAA. (Id. at 17) Plaintiff was returned to work and paid for the time she had been placed on leave. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that when she returned to work with SSO, she complied with defendant’s demands that she work weekend shifts. (Id. at
19-20) Plaintiff indicates that she changed her schedule with Marriott to meet the needs of defendant. (Id.) However, plaintiff alleges that she was still not permitted the same flexibility in scheduling that was given to Caucasian employees by SSO. (Id.) Plaintiff informed defendant that she filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC. (Id.) On October 1, 2021, plaintiff was again placed on unpaid leave by SSO. (Id. at 21) Plaintiff alleges that defendant again cited HIPAA concerns with regard to plaintiff performing contact tracing from a hotel room, even though defendant previously indicated this issue had been resolved. (Id.) On October 8, 2021, defendant met with plaintiff and accused her of committing fraud on a number of dates by claiming to be working as a contact tracer for SSO at the same she was working shifts at the Residence Inn by Marriott. (Id. at 26) Stated another way, defendant accused plaintiff of “double dipping” or collecting paychecks from both SSO and Marriott for shifts scheduled on the same dates and times. (Id. at 26, 30) Defendant terminated plaintiff on October 28, 2021, stating that plaintiff did not cooperate with their investigation of her employment with Marriott. (Id. at 30) The termination letter further indicated that defendant determined that plaintiff’s shifts at her secondary employment overlapped with her contact-tracing shifts with SSO. (Id.) Plaintiff denies that she ever worked for both Marriott and defendant at the same time, and maintains that she fully cooperated with defendant’s investigation of this issue. (Id. at
