Temporal Proximity Alone Cannot Sustain a Pregnancy Discrimination Claim at the Pleading Stage When Employer Shows Contemporaneous Layoffs: Margarita v. Mountain Time Health, LLC

Introduction

This commentary analyzes the Appellate Division, Second Department’s decision in Margarita v. Mountain Time Health, LLC (2025 NY Slip Op 04089), which affirms dismissal of a pregnancy discrimination complaint under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) at the pleading stage. The decision clarifies two important points:

On a CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion, a court may consider evidentiary materials submitted by a defendant; if those materials conclusively show that a key factual allegation “is not a fact at all,” dismissal is proper.
Temporal proximity between a pregnancy disclosure and termination, standing alone, is insufficient to raise an inference of discriminatory intent where the employer shows contemporaneous layoffs, including in the plaintiff’s unit and role.

The case involves a medical technician (plaintiff Emelyn Margarita) who alleged she was terminated shortly after notifying her manager of her pregnancy. She claimed she was the only employee laid off in her department, suggesting a discriminatory animus. The employer (Mountain Time Health, LLC), supported by sworn and documentary evidence, demonstrated multiple simultaneous layoffs—including of other medical technicians in the same unit—undermining the inference of pregnancy-based discrimination. The Supreme Court (Kings County) granted the employer’s CPLR 3211(a) motion to dismiss, and the Second Department affirmed.

Summary of the Judgment

The Second Department affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. It held:

The plaintiff satisfied the first three elements (protected status, qualification, adverse employment action/unfavorable change), but failed on the fourth—allegations sufficient to support an inference of discriminatory motive under both the NYSHRL and NYCHRL.
Defendants’ evidentiary submissions (an HR affidavit, internal staffing records, and a mass termination email) conclusively refuted the plaintiff’s allegation that she was the “only” layoff, rendering that material allegation “not a fact at all.”
Given the demonstrated broader layoffs, the temporal proximity between the plaintiff’s pregnancy disclosure and her termination, without more, did not suffice to raise an inference of discrimination.
Accordingly, the complaint was properly dismissed under CPLR 3211(a).

Detailed Background

The plaintiff, hired as a medical technician in January 2022, told her manager in April 2022 that she was pregnant. In June 2022, she was terminated. While she alleged she had been told there were “multiple lay-offs in her department,” she also pleaded that she was, in fact, the only layoff—a critical assertion used to support an inference of discrimination.

Defendants moved to dismiss, submitting:

An affidavit from the HR employee (defendant Powell).
An internal document reflecting medical technician staffing at the plaintiff’s unit throughout May 2022.
A June 4, 2022 termination notice email showing multiple employees, including medical technicians in the same unit, were terminated at the same time.

The trial court considered these materials without converting the motion to summary judgment and dismissed the complaint; the Appellate Division affirmed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Pleading and motion to dismiss standards

Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83 and Acala v Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky & Popeo, P.C., 222 AD3d 706: Reinforce that on a CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion, courts accept the complaint’s facts as true and give plaintiffs every favorable inference. This sets the baseline deference to pleadings.
Perez v Y & M Transp. Corp., 219 AD3d 1449 and Silvers v Jamaica Hosp., 218 AD3d 817: Emphasize that the question is whether the plaintiff can succeed on any reasonable view of the facts, and that ultimate proof is not considered at this stage.
TV Tech Mgrs., Inc. v Cohen, 227 AD3d 838; Domitz v City of Long Beach, 187 AD3d 853; Elco v Aguiar, 226 AD3d 649; Parpounas v Ohagan, 216 AD3d 985; Langley v Melville Fire Dist., 213 AD3d 748: These cases collectively authorize courts to consider evidentiary material on a 3211(a)(7) motion without converting it to summary judgment. When such materials are considered, the inquiry becomes whether the plaintiff has a cause of action; dismissal is proper only if the defendant’s materials conclusively show that a material allegation is not true and that there is no significant factual dispute.
Cordell Marble Falls, LLC v Kelly, 191 AD3d 760: Bare legal conclusions or allegations flatly contradicted by the record are not presumed true.
Thaw v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 129 AD3d 937: Provides the key “not a fact at all” articulation. The court relied on this to treat the “only layoff” allegation as conclusively disproved by defendants’ documents.

Substantive discrimination standards under NYSHRL and NYCHRL

Ayers v Bloomberg, L.P., 203 AD3d 872: Restates that it is unlawful to discriminate based on protected status; sets out the NYSHRL prima facie elements (protected class, qualification, adverse employment action, inference of discrimination).
Okeke v Interfaith Med. Ctr., 224 AD3d 763: Articulates the NYCHRL pleading standard: member of a protected class, qualified, “treated less well” or unfavorable change, and circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination.
Albunio v City of New York, 16 NY3d 472: Requires that NYCHRL be construed broadly in favor of discrimination plaintiffs, to the extent reasonably possible.
Matter of NYS Div. of Human Rights v Boro Park Senior Living Community, LLC, 213 AD3d 671: Confirms that pregnancy discrimination is a form of gender discrimination.
Executive Law § 296 and Administrative Code § 8-107: Statutory anchors for the NYSHRL and NYCHRL causes of action.

Temporal proximity as a basis for inference

Harrington v City of New York, 157 AD3d 582; La Marca-Pagano v Dr. Steven Phillips, P.C., 129 AD3d 918: Recognize that temporal proximity can, in some circumstances, support an inference of causation for discrimination/retaliation claims.
Tibbetts v Pelham Union Free Sch. Dist., 143 AD3d 806; Parris v NYC Dept. of Educ., 111 AD3d 528: Indicate limits—proximity alone may not suffice given competing facts and circumstances.
Kaplan v NYC Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene, 142 AD3d 1050 (cited in contrast): Used “cf.” to signal that where documentary records do not refute the plaintiff’s claim, different outcomes may follow; here, by contrast, defendants’ documents were dispositive on the key allegation.

Legal Reasoning

The court acknowledged plaintiff’s protected status (pregnancy as gender discrimination), qualification for her position, and that termination constituted an adverse employment action (NYSHRL) and an unfavorable change (NYCHRL). The dispositive issue was whether the surrounding circumstances plausibly supported an inference of discriminatory intent.

The plaintiff’s central factual premise—that she was the “only” layoff in her department—was directly contradicted by defendants’ evidentiary submissions. These included:

An HR affidavit (Powell) attesting to broader layoffs.
Internal records identifying multiple medical technicians who worked in the plaintiff’s assigned unit during May 2022.
A June 4, 2022 email notice documenting that numerous employees, including two other medical technicians from the same unit, were terminated at the same time.

Under the CPLR 3211(a)(7) framework, once such materials are considered, the inquiry shifts to whether the plaintiff has a cause of action; defendants’ documents must “conclusively” demonstrate that a material allegation “is not a fact at all,” and that no significant factual dispute exists. The court held that defendants met that exacting standard regarding the “only layoff” assertion.

With the singular layoff premise removed, the plaintiff’s inference of discrimination rested solely on temporal proximity: she disclosed pregnancy in April and was terminated in June. While temporal proximity may sometimes suffice to raise an inference, the court emphasized that it does not operate in a vacuum. Considering the undisputed evidence of simultaneous layoffs affecting multiple employees, including comparably situated medical technicians in the same unit, temporal proximity alone did not give rise to an inference of discriminatory motive. Thus, the fourth element of both NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims—the inference requirement—was not satisfied, even under the NYCHRL’s broad construction mandate.

Impact and Significance

Clarifies the role of evidentiary submissions at the 3211 stage: Defendants can, at the pleading stage, defeat discrimination claims by submitting affidavits and business records that conclusively show a plaintiff’s key factual premise is false. This underscores the practical potency of CPLR 3211(a)(7) when paired with robust internal documentation.
Sets a pleading boundary for pregnancy discrimination claims: When an employer substantiates a contemporaneous reduction-in-force (RIF) or multi-employee layoff, temporal proximity to a pregnancy disclosure, without more, will generally not sustain an inference of discriminatory animus at the pleadings stage.
NYCHRL’s breadth is not boundless: Even under the City law’s “treated less well” framework and liberal construction, plaintiffs must allege circumstances that plausibly connect the adverse action to discriminatory motive. A documented, neutral RIF can defeat that inference at the outset if unrebutted.
Practical structuring of both sides’ litigation strategies: Employers should preserve and be ready to present contemporaneous RIF documentation (unit staffing charts, termination emails, decisionmaker affidavits). Plaintiffs, anticipating early dismissal risks, should marshal and plead additional facts indicating discriminatory selection within a RIF—e.g., discriminatory remarks, comparator disparities, deviation from layoff criteria, shifting explanations, or irregular processes—rather than rely on timing alone.
Discovery gating effect: The decision increases the likelihood that some discrimination claims—particularly those tied to layoffs—may be decided before discovery where the employer’s records are sufficiently conclusive, impacting litigation costs and leverage.

Complex Concepts Simplified

CPLR 3211(a)(7) – Failure to state a cause of action: A motion testing the legal sufficiency of the complaint. Courts generally accept well-pleaded facts as true and draw reasonable inferences for the plaintiff.
Considering evidentiary materials on a 3211(a)(7) motion: New York courts may review affidavits and documents submitted by defendants without converting the motion to summary judgment. If those materials conclusively show that a central factual allegation is demonstrably false and not genuinely disputed, dismissal is permitted.
“Material fact … not a fact at all” standard: A shorthand for the level of conclusiveness required for evidentiary materials to defeat a complaint at the pleading stage. If the defendant’s proof shows a core factual claim is plainly untrue, courts can disregard it and dismiss.
Inference of discrimination: The requirement that the circumstances surrounding the adverse action plausibly suggest a discriminatory reason. It can be shown through comparators, remarks, patterns, deviations from policy, shifting explanations, and sometimes timing—though timing alone can be inadequate.
Temporal proximity: The closeness in time between a protected disclosure (like announcing pregnancy) and an adverse action (like termination). It can support an inference of causation but typically needs context; it is weaker where neutral explanations (e.g., documented layoffs) are present.
NYSHRL vs NYCHRL standards: Both prohibit discrimination. NYSHRL looks to an adverse employment action caused by discriminatory intent; NYCHRL uses a broader “treated less well” standard and mandates liberal construction. Both, however, still require a plausible inference that discrimination played a role.
Pregnancy as gender discrimination: Under both laws, adverse actions based on pregnancy are treated as sex/gender discrimination.

Practical Takeaways

For Plaintiffs

Do not rely on temporal proximity alone when a layoff or RIF is in play. Plead additional facts that connect your selection to discriminatory bias.
Allege concrete comparators (e.g., similarly situated non-pregnant colleagues retained), discriminatory remarks, deviations from neutral criteria, or inconsistencies in the employer’s explanation.
If you allege you were the “only” person laid off, be prepared that the defendant may submit records disproving that assertion at the pleading stage.

For Employers

Maintain contemporaneous RIF documentation: criteria, selection matrices, unit-level staffing records, and communications. These can be outcome-determinative on a motion to dismiss.
Ensure consistent, well-documented reasons for termination decisions; avoid shifting explanations.
Identify and submit targeted materials that directly refute any pivotal factual allegation (e.g., “only layoff”), aiming to meet the “not a fact at all” threshold.

Conclusion

Margarita v. Mountain Time Health, LLC reinforces and refines New York’s pleading-stage jurisprudence in employment discrimination cases. It confirms that courts may consider employer-submitted affidavits and internal records on a CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion; if those materials conclusively negate a material factual allegation, dismissal is appropriate without discovery. Substantively, the decision clarifies that temporal proximity between a pregnancy disclosure and a termination, standing alone, does not create an inference of discriminatory motive where the employer demonstrates a contemporaneous, neutral layoff affecting multiple employees, including those similarly situated in the same unit.

For practitioners, the case underscores the premium on both sides’ early record-building: plaintiffs must plead facts beyond timing to connect the adverse action to bias, and employers that contemporaneously document neutral RIFs can successfully defeat claims at the threshold. The ruling thus has significant implications for how pregnancy discrimination and broader NYSHRL/NYCHRL claims are pleaded, opposed, and adjudicated in the Second Department.