Jacqueline Acosta v. NAS Insurance Services, LLC

I. BACKGROUND

According to the first amended complaint, Defendants hired Plaintiff in June 2023 as an operations associate. (Willis Decl. Ex. 9 (“FAC”) ¶ 17, ECF No. 1-2.) Plaintiff worked 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. five days a week, four of which were from home. (Id. ¶ 19.) In November 2023, Plaintiff’s 18-month-old son, “N,” was diagnosed with a sever developmental delay. (Id. ¶ 24.) As a result, N required assistance to carry out basic functions and also needed to attend regular medical appointments. (Id. ¶¶ 25–26.) In December, Plaintiff met with her direct supervisors and a human resources representative and informed them about N’s disability “[i]n hopes of obtaining reasonable accommodations in order to care for [N].” (Id. ¶ 28; see id. ¶ 16.) Specifically, she requested reduced hours, a flexible work schedule, and the ability to work from home all five days per week. (Id. ¶ 30.)

However, Plaintiff contends that Defendants responded to every attempt to engage in reasonable accommodation with “dissuasion, disregard, or outright denial.” (Id. ¶ 29.) She alleges that after her requests, Defendants began retaliating against her, including forcing her to take…