385 F. Supp. 3d 224
S.D. Ill.2019Background
- Plaintiff Michael Benzinger, an Asian-American man, alleges racially discriminatory incidents in the lobby of 83 Maiden Lane on June 21–22, 2016 involving a porter (Sammy Rivera) and UPS security guard Justin Brooks.
- Rivera used racial epithets (e.g., “chink,” “ching chong”); Brooks allegedly laughed at Rivera’s remarks and made a non‑racial comment (“He ain’t gonna say nothing to you”) on June 22.
- Plaintiff complained to AHRC management; AHRC investigated and concluded it could not substantiate the allegations; Plaintiff alleges the investigation/prosecution protected Rivera and Brooks and that UPS failed to remediate.
- Plaintiff sues under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and § 1985, New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) §§ 8‑107(4), 8‑107(6), 8‑107(7), and negligent retention; UPS moved to dismiss.
- Court dismissed with prejudice the federal claims (§§ 1981 and 1985), NYCHRL § 8‑107(7) (retaliation), and negligent retention; the court retained and permitted NYCHRL §§ 8‑107(4) (public accommodations discrimination) and 8‑107(6) (aiding and abetting) claims to proceed against UPS.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1981 claim pleaded (intent + denial of an enumerated right) | Brooks’ laughter at racial slurs and June 22 remark show intent and denied Benzinger the contracted-for experience with Access or equal benefit of laws | Laughter alone insufficient; no allegation Brooks had power to interfere with contract; NYCHRL violation cannot bootstrap § 1981 | § 1981 dismissed: intent plausibly pleaded (laughter) but no protected § 1981 right alleged (no contract interference by UPS; NYCHRL not a § 1981 predicate) |
| Whether § 1985 conspiracy pleaded | Brooks and Rivera conspired to deprive Benzinger of § 1981 rights | No plausible predicate § 1981 violation; insufficient factual basis for a meeting of the minds | § 1985 dismissed for failure to plead a predicate federal right and no particularized conspiracy facts |
| Whether NYCHRL § 8‑107(4) (public accommodation) pleaded | Brooks’ laughter at explicit racial slurs is an indirect declaration that Benzinger was unwelcome | Stray remarks insufficient to sustain discrimination | Claim under § 8‑107(4) survives: repeated laughter at racial slurs plausibly an indirect declaration of unwelcome status |
| Whether NYCHRL § 8‑107(6) (aiding/abetting) pleaded | UPS failed to investigate/remediate and cooperated in a deficient investigation, supporting aiding/abetting liability | Alleged aiding/abetting is circular or conclusory | Claim under § 8‑107(6) survives: inadequate remedial action plausibly supports aiding/abetting liability |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (legal conclusions not entitled to factual presumption)
- Faber v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 648 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2011) (12(b)(6) pleading principles in Second Circuit)
- Mian v. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corp., 7 F.3d 1085 (2d Cir. 1993) (elements of § 1981 claim)
- Chuang v. University of California Davis, Board of Trustees, 225 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2000) (laughter at racial slur can evidence discriminatory intent)
- Phillip v. University of Rochester, 316 F.3d 291 (2d Cir. 2003) (requirement of nexus to state law for § 1981 “full and equal benefit” claims)
- Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88 (1971) (§ 1985 requires class‑based invidious discriminatory animus)
- United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners v. Scott, 463 U.S. 825 (1983) (§ 1985 vindicates rights found elsewhere)