89 F. Supp. 3d 484
E.D.N.Y2015Background
- Plaintiff Marlen Figueroa, a female former employee of RSquared NY, alleged quid pro quo sexual harassment and sex discrimination under Title VII and the NYSHRL after being denied reinstatement in Oct. 2013 following a miscarriage and leave.
- Plaintiff alleges Operations Manager Ain “Doe” left a voicemail offering rehire only if she "hook up" with him; she refused and reported it to her supervisor Neftaly Maroquin.
- Plaintiff alleges RSquared NY and owner/CEO Altai Hirji failed to take corrective action and that she was prevented from resuming employment because she rejected Ain’s advances.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
- The court construed the complaint liberally and treated Ain’s conditioning of rehiring on sexual assent as the relevant tangible employment action for a quid pro quo claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint pleads quid pro quo sexual harassment against employer (RSquared NY) | Ain’s demand conditioned rehire on sexual favors, constituting a tangible employment action and de facto supervisory power | Complaint fails because the tangible adverse action (denial of return) preceded the alleged demand and Ain was not a supervisor | Denied as to RSquared NY: complaint plausibly alleges quid pro quo harassment based on Ain’s conditioning of rehire and his de facto supervisory role |
| Whether independent sex-discrimination claim survives | Plaintiff asserts disparate-treatment sex discrimination in addition to quid pro quo theory | Defendants argue duplication and lack of comparator evidence | Granted dismissal: sex-discrimination claims dismissed as duplicative and lacking a comparator |
| Whether Title VII and NYSHRL claims may be asserted against individual defendants (Hirji, Ain) | Plaintiff seeks to hold individuals liable (including aiding-and-abetting under NYSHRL) | Defendants assert individuals not liable under Title VII and challenge NYSHRL individual liability absent direct participation | Title VII claims against individuals dismissed; NYSHRL aiding-and-abetting claim allowed as to Ain but dismissed as to Hirji |
| Whether Plaintiff adequately pled supervisory status or de facto supervisor for quid pro quo theory | Plaintiff alleges Ain was Operations Manager and cousin of CEO, implying power to rehire (de facto supervisor) | Defendants dispute supervisory authority and causal link to adverse action | Court found plausible inference that Ain was a de facto supervisor at pleading stage; claim may proceed against employer |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Sup. Ct. 1973) (framework for prima facie discrimination at summary judgment)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Sup. Ct. 2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim to relief)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Sup. Ct. 2009) (facial plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Schiano v. Quality Payroll Sys., Inc., 445 F.3d 597 (2d Cir. 2006) (quid pro quo requires supervisor who affects employment conditions)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (Sup. Ct. 2002) (Title VII complaints need only a short and plain statement, not detailed prima facie allegations)