Cost v. Super Media
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141969
S.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Cost, pro se plaintiff, sues Super Media (formerly Idearc/Ideare) under Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYC Admin Code for termination in 2007 allegedly due to racial discrimination and retaliation.
- Termination occurred while Ideare was in bankruptcy proceedings; Idearc/Ideare sought Chapter 11 relief in March 2009; Plan/Confirmation discharged pre-Effective Date (Dec 31, 2009) from prior claims.
- Cost filed a proof of claim in 2009 for wrongful termination; Bankruptcy Court later disallowed and expunged the claim in Feb 2010 with no distribution.
- EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter to Cost on Jan 8, 2010; Cost filed a complaint with the court in April 2010 and an amended complaint in 2011.
- Court analyzes timeliness and bankruptcy discharge effects on Cost’s Title VII and NYSHRL/NYCHRL claims under 1141 and related authorities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Title VII claim timely? | IFP filing tolled 90-day period for pro se plaintiff. | No timely filing after EEOC letter; tolling inadequate post-EEOC timeline. | Title VII claim not time-barred; timely due to IFP tolling and receipt timing. |
| Are NYSHRL/NYCHRL claims time-barred? | Complaint filed within 3-year window after 2007 termination. | Claims extinguished by bankruptcy discharge date. | Not time-barred; timely under 3-year statute. |
| Did Bankruptcy Court confirm/plan discharge preclude claims against Idearc/Super Media? | EEOC letter tolling could revive claims. | Discharge predated claims; §1141 discharge applies to pre-confirmation conduct. | Yes; claims arising before 12/31/2009 discharged; EEOC letter cannot revive. |
| Is there res judicata effect from proof-of-claim denial? | Possible recovery despite denial due to plan discharge. | Proof of Claim denial finalizes disposition; precludes relitigation. | Yes; denial constitutes final judgment; res judicata bars suit in district court. |
Key Cases Cited
- McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2007) (pleading plausibility standard (Iqbal, Twombly) applicable)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (facial plausibility required)
- Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2002) (consideration of documents in Rule 12(b)(6) motion)
- Toliver v. Cnty. of Sullivan, 841 F.2d 41 (2d Cir. 1988) (pro se filing and IFP tolling for timely filing)
- Ocasio v. Fashion Inst. of Tech., 86 F.Supp.2d 371 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (tolling of statute by IFP and filing date with pro se Office)
- Flaherty v. Metromail Corp., 235 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2000) (determinants of when a claim arises in discrimination cases)
- McSherry v. TWA, Inc., 81 F.3d 739 (8th Cir. 1996) (timing of discrimination claims and plan discharge context)
- Holmes v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l, 745 F. Supp. 2d 176 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (section 1141 discharge of pre-confirmation employment claims)