873 F. Supp. 2d 569
S.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Plaintiff Thomas Fattoruso, a New York citizen, sues Hilton Grand Vacations for gender discrimination and retaliation under NYCHRL in a diversity action.
- Hilton moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- Allegations describe Crandall’s consensual relationship with MacGraw and Crandall allegedly giving MacGraw advantages not offered to others.
- Plaintiff and Rob Ruocco reported concerns to supervisors; internal investigations allegedly found issues but produced no remedies.
- May 2011: Hilton allegedly closes Crandall–MacGraw investigation; May 26, 2011, plaintiff’s position at 57th Street is eliminated.
- Plaintiff later works at other NYC Hilton locations and is eventually terminated; plaintiff asserts discrimination, hostile environment, and retaliation under NYCHRL.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NYCHRL permits gender discrimination claims based on a consensual romantic relationship. | Fattoruso argues Crandall’s favoritism toward MacGraw shows sex-based discrimination. | Discrimination was not because of gender; it was Crandall’s preference, not plaintiff’s sex. | No; NYCHRL discrimination claim fails as there is no gender-based differential treatment. |
| Whether the NYCHRL supports a sexual harassment claim (quid pro quo or hostile work environment). | Plaintiff contends the relationship created a hostile environment and quid pro quo benefits. | Allegations do not show sex-based harassment; no quid pro quo or gender-based hostile environment established. | No; sexual harassment claim not plausibly alleging either theory. |
| Whether the NYCHRL retaliation claim is viable given the alleged complaints and actions. | Plaintiff asserts he engaged in protected activity by voicing concerns about discriminatory conduct. | Complaints about a consensual relationship and internal policy do not constitute protected unlawful activity. | No; retaliation claim fails for lack of reasonable belief that law was violated and causal link. |
| Whether leave to amend the complaint would be futile and should be denied. | Amendment would be futile; no salvaging of claims; motion to amend denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- DeCintio v. Westchester County Med. Ctr., 807 F.2d 304 (2d Cir.1986) (paramour-based discrimination not cognizable under Title VII (floor, not ceiling))
- Krasner v. HSH Nordbank AG, 680 F.Supp.2d 502 (S.D.N.Y.2010) (discrimination claims require sex-based rationale; atmosphere alleging discrimination against men insufficient)
- Williams v. City of New York Hous. Auth., 872 N.Y.S.2d 27 (1st Dep’t 2009) (NYCHRL liberally construed to protect broad remedial purposes; focus on unequal treatment by gender)