- Coleman v. Optum Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176666 (SDNY Sep. 29, 2023).
In a recent decision, the NY District Court determined whether the NY WARN Act can be applied “exterritorialy,” i.e., are remote workers who perform work outside of the state covered by the NY WARN Act. Considering that “[n]o court since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic has explicitly addressed whether telework performed for New York is sufficient to state a claim under the N.Y. WARN Act,” the NY District Court instead relied on the language of the NY WARN Act to make its determination.
Based on the statutory language of the Act and the “absence of on-point case law,” the NY District Court held the remote workers were unable to clearly establish a sufficient claim under NY WARN Act. Considering the definition of “plant closing” is limited to a “single site of employment,” this language only encompasses workers physically present at the location and “does not appear to contemplate remote works as [a] covered [class].”
However, with the new amendments issued by the NY DOL, it appears that a movement towards fully protecting remote workers may be in the works. The NY DOL’s new provision that full-time employees “who work remotely but are based at the employment site” be counted towards the 50-employee threshold was included to address post-pandemic environments in the workforce. With the rise of remote and hybrid work, legislative bodies and courts will be required to provide more concise provisions and rulings to explicitly address the issues surrounding the protections of remote workers.
Additionally, the NY District Court in Coleman did not address whether hybrid work would be covered under the NY WARN Act. Considering hybrid workers are still required to report to the single sight of employment, it can be argued that hybrid workers be covered under the NY WARN Act, and therefore some areas of remote work would also qualify for protections. This would open the door to greater job security for remote workers.
Other CASES on Remote Terminations in NY
- Rosenberg v. Boces, 2022 NYLJ LEXIS 2529 [Sup Ct, Nassau County 2022].
Plaintiff Rosenberg alleged Defendant Nassau BOCES violated the New York State Human Rights Law and NY Exec. Law §296 for claims including constructive discharge, retaliation, and disability and age discrimination. Rosenberg, 2022 NYLJ LEXIS 2529, at *1. The New York Supreme Court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss holding the “requisite elements for constructive discharge and retaliation are supported by the facts since plaintiff was terminated 15 months before she was entitled to a full pension without being given procedural safeguards and a right to be heard prior to termination.” Id.
Constructive Discharge
Plaintiff had worked for Defendant for more than 28 years. Id. Due to underlying medical conditions, Plaintiff requested an accommodation to work remotely for the 2020 to 2021 school year. Id. Plaintiff alleged that because Defendants denied her accommodations requests, she was constructively terminated and forced into early retirement. Id.
The Court held that Plaintiff pled sufficient facts to meet all the requisite elements for constructive discharge. Id. at *10. Because “defendants unjustifiably and arbitrarily denied the plaintiff’s request to work remotely for the 2020/2021 school year, [they] thereby constructively terminat[ed] the plaintiff by forcing her into early retirement.” Id.
Retaliation
Plaintiff alleged that once Defendant was aware she filed a formal age and disability complaint, they subjected her to “severe harassment, wonton and unjustified neglect, [and] unreasonable expectations [i.e., denial of remote work] for job performance and other outrageous conduct.” Id. at *11.
The Court held that Plaintiff “sufficiently allege[d] facts to support a cause of action for retaliation.” Id. at *10. The adverse action taken by Defendant in response to Plaintiff’s filed complaint, i.e., “subjecting the plaintiff to unreasonable job expectations, which included in-person instruction,” “adequately demonstrate[s] that she engaged in a protected activity when she filed a discrimination complaint” against Defendant. Id. at *11. Therefore, “a causal connection between the filing of the discrimination complaint and adverse employment action” can be inferred from the alleged facts. Id.
Age and Disability Discrimination
In support of their motion of dismiss, Defendants argue that Plaintiff failed to allege that their decision to “deny the plaintiff’s workplace accommodation was based solely on the plaintiff’s age and disabilities.” Id. at *15. However, the Court disagreed. They noted that Defendant “was aware of the plaintiff’s conditions, [yet they] denied her request to work remotely despite having granted the same accommodation to some of the plaintiff’s colleagues.” Id. at *16. Because Plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to support her cause of action regarding age and disability discrimination, the Court denied Defendant’s motion of dismiss on this matter. Id.