MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER The pro se plaintiff alleges that the defendant, her former employer, discriminated and retaliated against her on the basis of a perceived disability. Before the Court is the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 14.) For the reasons that follow, the defendant’s motion is granted. BACKGROUND The following facts are drawn from the plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 2), the affidavit and exhibits filed in support of the complaint (ECF No. 3), and the affidavit filed in support of the plaintiff’s opposition to the defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 15 at 15-21).1 The plaintiff was a caseworker for the New York City Human Rights Administration (“HRA”) from April 2017 to June 2022. (ECF No. 2 21.) In March 2020, after then-Mayor Bill DeBlasio declared a state of emergency, the defendant implemented policy measures to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. (Id. 22.) On October 19, 2020, the defendant updated its COVID policies and procedures to require that all HRA staff check their temperatures and complete a health screening questionnaire before “reporting to Agency work locations or conducting field work.” (Id.
24-25; ECF No. 3-1.) On July 27, 2021, HRA Commissioner Steven Banks sent the plaintiff an email advising her that “starting in August and September, City employees would be required to show proof of vaccination or a weekly negative Covid-19 test” when they got to work. (ECF No. 2 32.) On August 2, 2021, the defendant updated its policy to permit employees to remove their face masks in the workplace if they provided proof that they were fully vaccinated against COVID-19. (Id. 33.) The plaintiff was advised by email on September 30, 2021 that she was not in compliance with the defendant’s requirement that employees must either provide proof of vaccination or submit a weekly negative PCR COVID-19 test. (Id. 35.) The defendant updated its COVID policies again on October 20, 2021, requiring that all New York City employees receive at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine by October 29, 2021. (Id. 37; ECF No. 3-2.) Employees who did not submit proof of vaccination by November 1, 2021 “would be placed on [l]eave [w]ithout [p]ay.” (ECF No. 2 37; ECF No. 3-2.) The next day, the plaintiff received an email from the Department of Social Services (“DSS”)2 stating that she was “not in compliance with the City’s vaccination requirement,” and that she would be placed on leave without pay starting November 1, 2021 if she remained noncompliant. (ECF No. 2 38; ECF No. 3-3.) Also on October 21, 2021, the plaintiff met with her supervisor Prima Watkins “to discuss her vaccination status” and what she needed to do to “stay in compliance.” (ECF No. 2 39.) On October 22, 2021, DSS informed the plaintiff by email that employees could request an “exemption from the vaccine requirement,” but that “[r]easonable accommodation[s] may be granted only for documented medical and religious reasons.” (ECF No. 3-6 at 2.) The email also listed the requirements for either a temporary or permanent medical exemption. (Id.) On October 27, 2021, DSS reminded the plaintiff by email of the October 29, 2021 deadline to submit proof of vaccination. (ECF No. 2 40; ECF No. 3-6 at 1.) On the same day, the plaintiff submitted a request for a “reasonable accommodation for vaccine exemption.” (ECF No. 2 40; see ECF No. 3-10 at 3.) The next day, October 28, 2021, the plaintiff met with her supervisor Michael Sullivan to discuss the vaccine mandate; Sullivan encouraged her to get the vaccine. (ECF No. 2 41.) In a November 3, 2021 letter to DSS, HRA Human Resources representative Elaine Lewis, ADR Coordinator David L. Reinman, and the HRA Office of Legal Affairs, Legal Counsel, the plaintiff stated that she refused to “waiv[e] [her] rights under the ADA” by clarifying her vaccination status, and that the inquiry into her vaccination status was “discriminatory because it classifies [her] as either ‘vaccinated’ or ‘unvaccinated’ and will [cause the defendant to] treat [her] differently based upon [her] classification.” (ECF No. 3-8 at 1; see also ECF No. 2
