Plaintiff has argued, again, that "plaintiffs in employment discrimination cases, including ADA discrimination cases, are not required to establish a prima facie case at the motion to dismiss stage .... [a]t this stage, a plaintiff need only give plausible support to a minimal inference of discriminatory motivation." [Dkt. 37 (Pl. Mem. in Opp'n) at 2](quoting Zako v. Encompass Digital Media, Inc., No. 3:19-CV-844 (MPS), 2020 WL 3542323, at *7 (D. Conn. June 30, 2020). While the Court agrees that Plaintiff is not required to prove a prima facie claim of discrimination to survive a motion to dismiss, the reduced burden of plausibly alleging facts tending to show a "minimal inference" of discrimination does not obviate the requirement that Plaintiff plausibly allege that he is disabled within the meaning of the ADA. Littlejohn, 795 F.3d at 311.

To state a hostile work environment claim under the ADA, “[t]he plaintiff must also allege facts suggesting that the harassing conduct was motivated by animus directed at [her] disability.” Hendrix v. Pactiv LLC, 488 F.Supp.3d 43, 53 (W.D.N.Y. 2020) (quoting Zako v. Encompass Digital Media, Inc., No. 19-CV-844, 2020 WL 3542323, at *13 (D. Conn. June 30, 2020)); see also Sosa v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., 368 F.Supp.3d 489, 525 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (stating with respect to the plaintiff's hostile work environment claim that the plaintiff “has failed to allege that the abusive incidents were because of any disability that she had.

But plaintiffs “are not required to establish a prima face case at the motion to dismiss stage.” Zako v. Encompass Digital Media, Inc., 2020 WL 3542323, at *7 (D. Conn. June 30, 2020) (citing Dooley v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 636 Fed.Appx. 16, 21 (2d Cir. 2015) (summary order)). Rather, “a plaintiff need only give plausible support to a minimal inference of discriminatory motivation” to survive a motion to dismiss.

See, e.g., Zako v. Encompass Digit. Media, Inc., No. 19-cv-844, 2020 WL 3542323, at *8, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114387, at *25-26 (D. Conn. June 30, 2020) (finding allegations of superiors' comments and reactions regarding the plaintiff's frequent need to urinate sufficient to plead he was regarded as having a disability); Rodriguez v. Verizon Telecom, No. 13-cv-6969, 2014 WL 6807834, at *5, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167833, at *13 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2014)

A plaintiff is “not required to establish a prima face case at the motion to dismiss stage.” Zako v. Encompass Digital Media, Inc., 2020 WL 3542323, at *7 (D. Conn. June 30, 2020) (citing Dooley v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 636 Fed.Appx. 16, 21 (2d Cir. 2015) (summary order)).

” Hendrix v. Pactiv LLC, 488 F.Supp.3d 43, 53 (W.D.N.Y. 2020) (quoting (Zako v. Encompass Digital Media, Inc., No. 19-CV-844, 2020 WL 3542323, at *13 (D. Conn. June 30, 2020)); see also Sosa v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., 368 F.Supp.3d 489, 525 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (“The problems with [the plaintiff's complaint] . . . imperil her disability hostile work environment claim.

Moreover, Thompson's conduct did not approach the level of objective severity and pervasiveness required to substantiate a hostile workplace environment claim. See Zako v. Encompass Digital Media, Inc., 2020 WL 3542323 (D. Conn. 2020) (single age-related comment about younger workers being willing to do overnight shifts did not constitute severe and pervasive harassment).

While an impairment affecting the bowel or bladder functions could constitute a disability, Plaintiff's allegations here are not sufficient. Plaintiff points to Zako v. Encompass Digital Media, Inc., No. 3:19-cv-844, 2020 WL 3542323 (D. Conn. June 30, 2020), in support of her argument. (Doc. 28 at 13.) In Zako, the court found that the plaintiff's allegations were sufficient to plausibly allege a disability.

"The plaintiff must also allege facts suggesting that the harassing conduct was motivated by animus directed at his disability." Zako v. Encompass Digital Media, Inc. , No. 19-cv-844, 2020 WL 3542323, at *13 (D. Conn. June 30, 2020). Plaintiff has not alleged such facts here.