Pugh-Ouza v. Springhill Suites et al

Filing 176

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 148 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 152 Letter Motion for Oral Argument. Pending before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment. For reasons that will be articulated at a confer ence on April 7, 2022 at 2:00 p.m., the motion is granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the Court grants the motion as to Plaintiff's gender discrimination, associational disability discrimination, and hostile work environment cla ims, but denies the motion as to her pregnancy discrimination and retaliation claims. Defendants' request for oral argument is also denied. The parties shall confer and notify the Court as to whether they prefer to have the conference in pers on or remotely. If the parties are unavailable on April 7, they shall propose alternative dates for the conference. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions pending at Dkt. 148 and Dkt. 152. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Ronnie Abrams on 3/28/2022) (mml)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

SHANELL PUGH-OZUA,
Plaintiff,
No. 18-CV-1755 (RA)
v.
ORDER
SPRINGHILL SMC, LLC, CARRIE
CARPENTER, and GINA NEAGU,
Defendants. 1

RONNIE ABRAMS, United States District Judge:
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. For reasons that
will be articulated at a conference on April 7, 2022 at 2:00 p.m., the motion is granted in part and
denied in part. Specifically, the Court grants the motion as to Plaintiff’s gender discrimination,
associational disability discrimination, and hostile work environment claims, but denies the
motion as to her pregnancy discrimination and retaliation claims. Defendants’ request for oral
argument is also denied.
The parties shall confer and notify the Court as to whether they prefer to have the
conference in person or remotely. If the parties are unavailable on April 7, they shall propose
alternative dates for the conference.

1

SpringHill SMC, LLC replaces SpringHill Suites Marriott as the proper name of the corporate defendant. See Dkt.
151-1 (Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt.) ¶ 3. Additionally, Marriott Hotel Services, Inc. and Marriott Worldwide Reservation
Services, LLC were incorrectly named as defendants, as neither entity employed Plaintiff nor owned or operated the
hotel that employed Plaintiff. Id. They are thus dismissed from the action. The Clerk of Court is respectfully
directed to amend the case caption in accordance with these changes.

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions pending at Dkt. 148
and Dkt. 152.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 28, 2022
New York, New York
__________________________
Hon. Ronnie Abrams
United States District Judge

2