130 F. Supp. 3d 709
E.D.N.Y2015Background
- Plaintiff Jeanette Ingrassia worked ~23 years for the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC) and alleges she was forced to retire in Jan 2012 because of age- and gender-based harassment and discrimination by supervisors.
- Alleged conduct: supervisors made repeated age-/gender-based derogatory comments, one supervisor frequently made sexual gestures (grabbing himself in view), read Plaintiff’s medical records, tapped her phone, publicly yelled at her, docked pay for short lateness, and moved her workspace.
- Plaintiff complained to her supervisor and union representative; she filed an EEOC charge and received a right-to-sue letter, then sued (initially in D.N.J., case transferred to E.D.N.Y.).
- Defendants moved to dismiss for improper service and for failure to state claims; Court found service untimely but extended the deadline (no prejudice to defendants) and declined to dismiss on that ground.
- Court dismissed Elmhurst Hospital and the City of New York (Elmhurst not a suable entity; Plaintiff conceded City was improper) and ordered caption amended to name The New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation.
- On the merits: Court dismissed Count One (discrimination claims under Title VII and the ADEA) for failure to allege an adverse employment action, but allowed claims for hostile work environment, retaliation, constructive discharge, and respondeat superior to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of service under FRCP 4(m) | Late service due to attempted service at hospital and counsel’s family illness; requests extension | Service untimely; no good cause (attorney negligence/contradictory statements) | No good cause shown, but court exercised discretion to extend service to actual service date (Aug 7, 2013) to avoid time-bar and prejudice to plaintiff |
| Proper defendants / caption | Named HHC, Elmhurst Hospital, City of New York | Elmhurst not a suable entity; City improper | Dismissed Elmhurst and City; directed caption amended to name The New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation |
| Discrimination claims (Count One) — Title VII & ADEA: adverse employment action requirement | Harassing comments, humiliations, alleged forced retirement amount to discrimination | Remarks and harassment insufficient because Plaintiff continued to receive raises/reviews and did not plead demotion/pay/benefit loss in complaint | Dismissed Count One: failed to plausibly allege an adverse employment action required for Title VII/ADEA discrete discrimination claims |
| Hostile work environment (Title VII & ADEA) | Repeated age/gender comments, sexual gesture, invasions of privacy, phone tapping created hostile environment | Some remarks are stray; conduct insufficient when considered in isolation | Allowed to proceed: allegations collectively plausibly state a hostile work environment claim |
| Retaliation (Title VII & ADEA) | Complained to supervisor and union; after complaint supervisor yelled, docked pay, tapped phone, moved belongings | Argues plaintiff failed to plead prima facie retaliation | Allowed to proceed: plaintiff alleged protected activity, notice, adverse acts that could dissuade a worker, and causal connection sufficient at pleading stage |
| Constructive discharge (Title VII & ADEA) | Employer’s cumulative conduct forced resignation (forced to quit) | Working conditions not sufficiently intolerable or specifically targeted | Allowed to proceed: hostile work environment alleged as predicate and cumulative harms plausibly support constructive discharge at this stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (application of Twombly plausibility standard)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002) (discrimination complaints need not plead every prima facie element at pleading stage)
- Littlejohn v. City of New York, 795 F.3d 297 (2d Cir. 2015) (pleading standard for showing employer took adverse action at least in part for discriminatory reason)
- Vega v. Hempstead Union Free Sch. Dist., 801 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2015) (ADEA requires "but for" causation; pleading standards for employment claims)
- Patane v. Clark, 508 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2007) (hostile work environment pleading and retaliation notice requirements)
- Kassner v. 2nd Ave. Delicatessen Inc., 496 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 2007) (notice-pleading standard for hostile work environment/ADEA retaliation claims)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (hostile work environment totality-of-circumstances test)
- Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (2009) (ADEA requires "but for" causation)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (retaliation standard: actions that would dissuade reasonable worker)
- Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129 (2004) (hostile work environment as predicate for hostile-environment constructive discharge)