MEMORANDUM & ORDER Plaintiff Sonya Gorbea brings this action against Defendant Verizon New York, Inc. (“Verizon”) stemming from the termination of her employment in December 2016. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts disability discrimination and failure to accommodate claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), codified at 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq., the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), codified at N.Y. State Exec. Law §290 et seq., and the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”), codified at N.Y.C. Admin. Code §8-101 et seq. (See Am. Compl. (Dkt. 16)
46-75.) Now before the court is Verizon’s motion for summary judgment. (Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. (“Mot.”) (Dkt. 28); Mem. in Supp. of Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J (“Mem.”) (Dkt. 30); Pl.’s Mem. in Opp. to Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. (“Opp.”) (Dkt. 32); Def.’s Reply in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. (“Reply”) (Dkt. 33).) For the following reasons, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED with prejudice. I. BACKGROUND1 A. Facts In 1997, Verizon hired Plaintiff as a Field Technician, a job that required heavy lifting and the ability to climb poles and ladders to repair telephone service for Verizon customers. (Def.’s R. 56.1 Stmt. (“Def. 56.1″) (Dkt. 29) 4.) Plaintiff injured her back in 2001 and has suffered from asthma since 2007. (Tr. of Mar. 28, 2019 Dep. of Pl. (“Pl. Tr.”) (Dkt. 31-2) at 17:7-16.) Between 2005 and 2010, Plaintiff requested, and Verizon provided to Plaintiff, accommodations that relieved Plaintiff of the responsibility to climb poles, lift ladders, or carry anything heavier than 25 pounds. (Id. at 17:17-24.) However, in 2011, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Verizon, alleging that Verizon had failed to provide her with sufficient accommodations. (Def. 56.1 7.) The parties settled the lawsuit in 2014; Plaintiff received a sum of money and the opportunity to return to work for Verizon in Manhattan as a full-time Field Technician with permanent reasonable accommodations. (Id. 8.) Plaintiff testified she was “ecstatic” about the lawsuit’s resolution and the “opportunity to go back out into the field and be able to work.” (Pl. Tr. at 19:17-23.) In October 2014, within two weeks of returning to work, Plaintiff went on disability leave for approximately one year after sustaining an injury to her ankle that required surgery. (Def. 56.1 11.) Plaintiff returned to work in September or October of 2015, but shortly thereafter she went on disability leave again for approximately one month. (Id. 12.) In April 2016, Plaintiff complained of pain “[t]hroughout [her] whole entire body,” and submitted a request for disability leave; the request was denied, as was Plaintiff’s subsequent appeal of the denial. (Pl. Tr. at 24:5-25:6.) Verizon asserts that Plaintiff’s request at this time was denied because “it was made during a union strike.” (Def. 56.1 13.) In August 2016, Plaintiff filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) charge stemming from an incident that took place on July 9, 2016. (Id. 17.) The incident involved an argument between Plaintiff and her manager about overtime work. (Id. 14.) During the course of the argument, Plaintiff told her manager she was not feeling well, and management responded by calling an ambulance. (Id. 15.) Once the ambulance arrived, Plaintiff got into a further argument with the EMT; Plaintiff admits she walked out of the ambulance before it left Verizon’s premises, got into her personal car, and drove away. (Id. 16.) Plaintiff ultimately received a right to sue letter from the EEOC but never filed suit. She did, however, file workers’ compensation claims, which were denied. (Id.) The last day Plaintiff reported to work at Verizon was August 8, 2016. (Id. 18.) Subsequently, Plaintiff applied for short-term disability benefits, but her request was denied by MetLife, the third-party administrator of Verizon’s short-term disability plan. (Id.) Plaintiff unsuccessfully appealed the denial. (Pl. Tr. at 58:17-24.) Plaintiff testified that from August 9, 2016 until December 29, 2016, the date her employment was terminated by Verizon, her doctors advised her against returning to work in any capacity, with or without accommodation, due to her depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.2 (Def. 56.1 33.) Plaintiff further testified that her doctors advised her not to return to work in any capacity, with or without accommodation, for all of 2017 and 2018. (Id. 33.) Plaintiff does not allege that she requested an accommodation from Verizon between August 9, 2016 and December 29, 2016. (Id. 38.) On August 24, 2016, Verizon sent Plaintiff a letter advising her that her short-term disability claim had been denied, she was absent from work without authorization, she was required to return to work or would risk termination, and she should advise Verizon if she needed an accommodation to return to work. (Aug. 24, 2016 Letter (Dkt. 31-6) at ECF 2.) Verizon sent follow-up letters to Plaintiff on September 7, 2016, December 1, 2016, and December 22, 2016 with the same information. (See Sept. 7, 2016 Letter (Dkt. 31-7) at ECF 2; Dec. 1, 2016 Letter (Dkt. 31-8) at ECF 2; Dec. 16, 2016 Letter (Dkt. 31-10) at ECF 2.) Plaintiff acknowledges that while she received the letters, she did not respond to the correspondence, return to work, or request an accommodation from Verizon. (Def. 56.1 28.) On December 29, 2016, Verizon sent a letter to Plaintiff informing her that she was being terminated from her position. (Dec. 29, 2016 Letter (Dkt. 31-11) at ECF 2.) B. Procedural History On March 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed a charge of disability discrimination with the EEOC stemming from her December 29, 2016 termination.3 (Def. 56.1 36.) The EEOC issued Plaintiff a Notice of Right to Sue Letter, and Plaintiff commenced this action on January 22, 2018. (See Compl. (Dkt. 1).) Plaintiff amended her complaint on April 20, 2018 (see Am. Compl.), and asserts that Verizon fired Plaintiff because of her disability and failed to provide Plaintiff with a reasonable accommodation in violation of the ADA, the NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL (see id.
