Brooks v. Bright Horizons

── Brooks v. Bright Horizons ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: June 09, 2026 Category: General 25-1830-cv Brooks v. Bright Horizons UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 9th day of June, two thousand twenty-six. Present: WILLIAM J. NARDINI, EUNICE C. LEE, BETH ROBINSON, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ AMANDA BROOKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 25-1830-cv BRIGHT HORIZONS FAMILY SOLUTIONS, INC., BRIGHT HORIZONS FAMILY SOLUTIONS LLC, BRIGHT HORIZONS CAPITAL CORPORATION, BRIGHT HORIZONS CHILDRENS CENTERS LLC, BRIGHT HORIZONS CHILDRENS CENTERS, INC., BRIGHT HORIZONS LLC, Defendants-Appellees. _____________________________________ For Plaintiff-Appellant: STEPHEN BERGSTEIN, Bergstein & Ullrich, New Paltz, NY. 1  For Defendants-Appellees: ELI Z. FREEDBERG, Littler Mendelson P.C., New York, NY. Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Paul A. Engelmayer, District Judge). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED IN PART. Plaintiff-Appellant Amanda Brooks appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, entered on June 26, 2025, dismissing her employment discrimination complaint against Defendants-Appellees Bright Horizons Family Solutions, Inc., Bright Horizons Family Solutions LLC, Bright Horizons Capital Corporation, Bright Horizons Children’s Centers LLC, Bright Horizons Children’s Centers Inc., and Bright Horizons LLC (collectively “Bright Horizons”) for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the case. In her amended complaint, Brooks made the following allegations, which we assume to be true for the purposes of this appeal. See Moreira v. Société Générale, S.A., 125 F.4th 371, 387 (2d Cir. 2025). 1 In 2017, Brooks began working at Bright Horizons, which offers day care services and early childhood education. Brooks had a stellar work history at Bright Horizons from 2017 until December 2020, when Bright Horizons appointed Robyn Carrone as the Regional Manager, making her Brooks’ supervisor. Carrone subsequently treated Brooks, the only Black director under her supervision, with hostility. Carrone micromanaged Brooks, demanding that Brooks 1 Unless otherwise indicated, when quoting cases, all internal quotation marks, alteration marks, emphases, footnotes, and citations are omitted. 2 copy Carrone on every email and invite Carrone to every staff meeting that Brooks held, even though no other director under Carrone’s supervision was required to do the same. Brooks was promoted to Executive Di