Amaya v. Ballyshear LLC, 340 F. Supp. 3d 215

Background

Plaintiff Nelly Amaya, a Southampton-based housekeeper, sued Ballyshear LLC, Geller & Co., and individual supervisors alleging race, gender, national-origin discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, § 1981, NYSHRL, and (in briefing) NYCHRL.
The Court previously dismissed Title VII claims and barred Amaya from pursuing wrongful termination, retaliatory discharge, or constructive discharge theories under § 1981 and the NYSHRL, but permitted § 1981/NYSHRL hostile work environment and § 1981/NYSHRL retaliation theories to proceed.
The April 20, 2018 order allowed Amaya to file a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) limited to adding NYCHRL claims and only facts relevant to NYCHRL coverage; it also dismissed one defendant and corrected a name.
Defendants moved to partially dismiss the SAC under Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and to strike portions under Rule 12(f), arguing (inter alia) lack of NYCHRL jurisdiction and that Amaya re-pled previously dismissed claims.
The Court found Amaya failed to plead that the alleged discrimination "impacted" New York City (a NYCHRL requirement), that she ever worked or was harmed in the five boroughs, and that allegations of meetings, hiring/termination decisions, or possible future work in NYC are insufficient.
The Court granted the motion: NYCHRL claims dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim; previously dismissed § 1981 and NYSHRL claims may not be reasserted; specified paragraphs in the SAC were struck as immaterial/impertinent; Amaya was directed to file a Third Amended Complaint conforming to these limits.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether NYCHRL claims satisfy NYC "impact" requirement	Amaya argued hiring/termination decisions made in NYC, attended NYC meetings, NYC supervisors contacted her, and she might be asked to work in NYC — creating sufficient NYC impact	Defendants argued plaintiff never worked or suffered impact in NYC; contacts/decision locations are insufficient	Court held Amaya failed to plead NYCHRL impact; dismissed NYCHRL claims for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim
Whether previously dismissed § 1981/NYSHRL claims were improperly re-pled in SAC	Amaya reasserted wrongful termination/retaliatory/constructive discharge claims	Defendants argued re-pleading violated prior MTD Order and April Order; amendment limited to NYCHRL only	Court held re-pleaded claims are barred; plaintiff must limit § 1981 and NYSHRL claims to hostile work environment and retaliation theories
Whether new factual allegations tied to NYCHRL should remain in SAC	Amaya maintained she could add facts supporting NYCHRL theories per April Order	Defendants moved to strike those paragraphs as immaterial/impertinent because NYCHRL claims fail	Court struck specified paragraphs as immaterial/impertinent under Rule 12(f) because they solely support dismissed NYCHRL claims
Standard and burden on jurisdictional facts	Amaya suggested defendants must show "no possibility" of jurisdiction	Defendants relied on fact-based jurisdictional challenge and evidence the impact was outside NYC	Court applied Rule 12(b)(1) standards: plaintiff bears burden to establish subject-matter jurisdiction; found plaintiff's pleadings insufficient

Key Cases Cited

Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110 (2d Cir.) (Rule 12(b)(1) standard on subject-matter jurisdiction)
Tandon v. Captain's Cove Marina of Bridgeport, Inc., 752 F.3d 239 (2d Cir.) (plaintiff bears burden to prove jurisdiction in fact-based challenges)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard under Rule 12(b)(6))
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standards—conclusory allegations insufficient)
Hoffman v. Parade Publ'ns, 15 N.Y.3d 285 (N.Y.) (NYCHRL requires discriminatory conduct to have impact in New York City)
Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 251 F. Supp. 3d 579 (S.D.N.Y.) (distinguishing NYCHRL impact where plaintiff regularly worked in NYC)