Anderson v. Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP
850 F. Supp. 2d 392
S.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Plaintiff Donovan Anderson, a heterosexual Black male, worked 16+ years at DPW in the Managing Attorney’s Office and was terminated in November 2009.
- Plaintiffs claims span Title VII, ADEA, FLSA, NYSHRL, NYCHRL, and NYLL, alleging sexual harassment, gender and age discrimination, overtime/expense disputes, sexual orientation discrimination, retaliation, failure to promote, and race discrimination.
- Defendants include DPW and Supervisors Jacobs, Candelario, Vucetovic, Jones, Grant, and Fashakin; some defendants’ supervisory roles overlapped over the years.
- After termination, Anderson filed a short EEOC charge on April 23, 2010; an amended complaint with exhibits followed, totaling 107 pages; Newark EEOC dismissed the charge on September 14, 2010.
- Dexterous handling of evidentiary standards: the court may consider attached documents; the court treated opposition pleadings as supplemental amendments; the court granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss and strike.
- The court ultimately dismissed several claims as time-barred or legally insufficient, and granted leave to amend only on a narrow basis for the sexual harassment claims against DPW, Candelario, Jones, and Grant regarding 2004 onward incidents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sexual harassment claims time-bar and scope | Anderson asserts timely, continuing harassment claims under Morgan and related standards. | Defendants argue timeliness and scope limit harassment claims. | Sexual harassment claims dismissed except for DPW, Candelario, Jones, and Grant for 2004 onward incidents and 2008–2009 events. |
| Gender discrimination plausibility | Anderson alleges Barrett received preferential treatment over him. | No plausible comparator or similarly situated evidence shown. | Gender discrimination claim dismissed in its entirety. |
| Age discrimination viability | Terminations suggest age-based disparate impact/treatment. | Plaintiff failed to show plausible age-based adverse action. | Age discrimination claim dismissed in its entirety. |
| Failure to compensate (FLSA/NYLL) | Overtime and unreimbursed expenses claimed; travel/vacations overtime issues. | Overtime rules do not credit vacation time; lack of precise basis for other charges. | Failure-to-compensate claim dismissed in its entirety. |
| Retaliation claim plausibility | Candelario retaliated after 2006 complaint. | Temporal link insufficient to show causation. | Retaliation claim dismissed in its entirety. |
Key Cases Cited
- Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must be plausible, not merely possible)
- Iqbal v. Ashcroft, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (U.S. 2002) (prima facie case is an evidentiary standard, not pleading requirement)
- Morgan v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2002) (Morgan exception to time-bar for hostile work environment)
- Kassner v. 2nd Ave. Delicatessen, Inc., 496 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 2007) (pleading standard in discrimination cases)
- Patane v. Clark, 508 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2007) (hostile environment standard applies to gender discrimination claims)
- Barbosa v. Continuum Health Partners Inc., 716 F. Supp. 2d 210 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (evidentiary framework for NYSHRL/NYCHRL claims)
- Dawson v. Bumble & Bumble, 398 F.3d 211 (2d Cir. 2005) (gender-based orientation discrimination analysis)