Defendants' argument that Ms. Crawford has failed to plausibly allege an inference of retaliation because she “has not alleged any facts suggesting that her request for FMLA leave served as a negative factor in [the College's] decision to terminate [her]” (ECF No. 35 at 16) is unavailing because temporal proximity is sufficient to satisfy the “motivating factor” inquiry. Kinchen v. St. John's Univ., No. 17 Civ. 3244 (MKB), 2019 WL 1386743, at *13 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2019) (citing Woods, 864 F.3d at 166, 169), aff'd, 830 Fed.Appx. 691 (2d Cir. 2020) (summary order)); see also Farooqi v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., No. 19 Civ. 3436 (DLC), 2021 WL 1549981, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2021) (“plaintiff raises an inference of retaliatory intent if she demonstrates that exercising her rights under the FMLA was used as a ‘negative factor' in the defendant's employment actions.
The Wiretap Act allows for civil remedies. See 18 U.S.C. § 2520; see also Kinchen v. St. John's Univ., No. 17-cv-3244, 2019 WL 1386743, at *10 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2019), aff'd sub nom. Kinchen v. Gonzalez, 830 Fed.Appx. 693 (2d Cir. 2020). “