DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Melissa Frey brings this employment discrimination action against her former employer, Defendant Northern Soy, Inc., as well as its two owners — Norman Holland and Andrew Schecter. She alleges that Northern Soy retaliated against her and engaged in sex and disability discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§12101-213 (“ADA”), and the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law §290 et seq. (“NYSHRL”). ECF No. 1. Now before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). ECF No. 10. Plaintiff opposes the motion. ECF No. 15. For the following reasons, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. LEGAL STANDARD A complaint will survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) when it states a plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). A claim for relief is plausible when the plaintiff pleads sufficient facts that allow the Court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. Id. at 678. In considering the plausibility of a claim, the Court must accept factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. Faber v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 648 F.3d 98, 104 (2d Cir. 2011). At the same time, the Court is not required to accord “[l]egal conclusions, deductions, or opinions couched as factual allegations…a presumption of truthfulness.” In re NYSE Specialists Secs. Litig., 503 F.3d 89, 95 (2d Cir. 2007). “Although the statute of limitations is ordinarily an affirmative defense that must be raised in the answer, a statute of limitations defense may be decided on a motion to dismiss…if the defense appears on the face of the complaint.” Brightman v. Physician Affiliate Grp. of N.Y., P.C., No. 20-CV-4290, 2021 WL 1999466, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. May 19, 2021) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). DISCUSSION The following facts are taken from the complaint, unless otherwise noted.1 In August 2018, Plaintiff began working at Northern Soy as an office assistant. Holland and Schecter are the owners of Northern Soy, with Holland acting as President and Schecter acting as Vice President. Within one month of her employment, Plaintiff was “unofficially” promoted to the role of office manager. See ECF No. 1
17-18. Plaintiff states that, during her employment, she was subjected to “almost daily berating by Holland regarding each and every” task she performed, in ways that male coworkers were not. Id. 24. For example, on one occasion, Holland yelled at Plaintiff and another female coworker while they were eating lunch, on the basis that they had left “the office unattended.” Id. 22. A male coworker, who was sitting with them in the breakroom, was not reprimanded. Id. Routinely, Plaintiff would be denied time off while other male coworkers were allowed to “put in for any time they wanted…without comment or problem.” Id. 34. Plaintiff was criticized for taking medical appointments during work hours. Id. 37. Holland’s behavior caused Plaintiff’s pre-existing depression and anxiety to increase, to the point that she was “suffer[ing] from significant anxiety and panic attacks.” Id. 25. When she asked for this abusive treatment to stop, Holland began using “his knowledge of Plaintiff’s mental health issues” against her. Id. 27. Holland called Plaintiff “too weak” and “too emotional” for her job. Id. 28. In addition to the constant reprimands and criticisms, Holland also engaged in and encouraged sexual harassment in the workplace. Holland “constantly made comments about [the] physical attributes” of women in the office, and repeatedly told Plaintiff that she needed to “lose a few pounds.” Id.
