Daniel v. T & M Protection Resources, Inc.
992 F. Supp. 2d 302
S.D.N.Y.2014Background
- Daniel, a former Fire Safety/EAP director at 590 Madison (IBM Building), was employed by T & M Protection Resources with Minskoff Equities as building manager/co-owner.
- T & M contracted to provide security services at 590 Madison; Daniel worked February 1, 2011 to May 18, 2012.
- Daniel claims ongoing harassment and discrimination based on race, national origin, and sexual orientation by John Melidones, a T & M employee under Minskoff’s oversight.
- Daniel alleges leave-denial and retaliatory conduct related to his health and his father’s medical conditions, including threats and discipline by Melidones and supervisors.
- Daniel was terminated on or around May 18, 2012; he filed EEOC and NYDHR charges, with the DHR finding no probable cause and the EEOC issuing a Right to Sue letter.
- Minskoff moved to dismiss; court assesses identity-of-interest in the DHR proceeding, joint-employer status, and the viability of negligence claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHR charge naming issue bars Title VII claim | Daniel's failure to name Minskoff bars claim | Must name employer or be barred | Identity-of-interest exception permits proceeding against Minskoff |
| Whether Minskoff is Daniel's employer under law | Joint-employer status makes Minskoff liable | Minskoff not an employer; separation of entities | Minskoff is a joint employer; claims survive |
| Whether SAC adequately states Title VII/NYSHRL/NYCHRL/FMLA claims against Minskoff | Minskoff participated in hiring/firing and tolerated harassment | SAC fails to allege actionable conduct by Minskoff | SAC plausibly alleges Minskoff involvement; claims survive |
| Whether negligence claim should be dismissed | Discrimination can support negligence | Discrimination claims are not tort claims | Negligence claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Vital v. Interfaith Med. Ctr., 168 F.3d 615 (2d Cir. 1999) (identity-of-interest exception to charging party must be considered)
- Johnson v. Palma, 931 F.2d 203 (2d Cir. 1991) (clarifies identity-of-interest factors for unnamed defendants)
- Goyette v. DCA Advertising, Inc., 830 F. Supp. 737 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (multi-entity employment relationships and joint-employer analysis)
- Treanor v. MTA, 414 F. Supp. 2d 297 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (discrimination claims may not be tort claims under New York law)