Krause v. Lancer & Loader Group, LLC
40 Misc. 3d 385
| N.Y. Sup. Ct. | 2013Background
- Krause sues Lancer & Loader Group, LLC (LLG) and Jonathan Levine for pregnancy discrimination under NYSHRL and NYCHRL, among others, seeking dismissal under CPLR 3211(a)(7).
- Krause was LLG’s national sales manager from about March 2007 until her termination on October 19, 2011; she worked largely from New Jersey and traveled for work.
- She learned of her pregnancy around August 12, 2011 and considered moving to North Carolina; she did not disclose pregnancy to management at that time.
- Krause informed Johnson of her pregnancy on September 27, 2011; Levine allegedly fired her about a week later citing “poor economy” and reduced sales.
- Plaintiff pleads five causes of action: pregnancy discrimination; disability discrimination; aiding and abetting discrimination; intentional infliction of emotional distress; and unpaid wages.
- The court grants in part and denies in part the motion to dismiss, dismissing disability discrimination, aiding and abetting, and intentional infliction claims, while denying dismissal of the remaining claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Krause states a claim for pregnancy discrimination. | Krause alleges protected class, qualification for the job, and termination shortly after disclosure of pregnancy. | Defendants contend no knowledge of pregnancy and non-discriminatory business reasons for termination. | Plaintiff states a cognizable pregnancy discrimination claim under NYSHRL and NYCHRL. |
| Whether Krause states a disability discrimination claim. | Pregnancy is a cognizable disability under NYSHRL/NYCHRL. | No disability proven or causation shown between pregnancy and termination. | Disability discrimination claim dismissed. |
| Whether Levine can be held individually liable for discrimination. | Levine's knowledge and role in firing after Krause announced pregnancy support individual liability. | Levine cannot be liable in his individual capacity under the HRL. | Levine liable individually as an employer under NYSHRL. |
| Whether the aiding and abetting discrimination claim survives against Levine. | Levine aided and abetted discrimination by firing Krause after learning of pregnancy. | An individual cannot aid and abet his own discriminatory conduct. | Aiding and abetting claim dismissed. |
| Whether the Labor Law unpaid wages claim remains viable. | Fifth claim for unpaid wages should stand; not addressed by defendants in motion to dismiss the wage claim. | Not addressed explicitly; focus is on other claims. | Fifth claim remains; not dismissed on this motion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mittl, Ophthalmologist, P.C. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 100 N.Y.2d 326 (2003) (employment discrimination in pregnancy analyzed under NYSHRL like Title VII)
- Elaine W. v Joint Diseases N. Gen. Hosp., 81 N.Y.2d 211 (1993) (pregnancy-based distinctions constitute sex discrimination)
- Vig v New York Hairspray Co., L.P., 67 A.D.3d 140 (1st Dept 2009) (notice pleading standard in employment discrimination claims)
- Bond v Sterling, Inc., 997 F. Supp. 306 (ND N.Y. 1998) (temporal proximity can raise inference of discrimination)
- Smith v K & F Indus., Inc., 190 F. Supp. 2d 643 (SD N.Y. 2002) (temporal proximity and discrimination in termination context)
- Flores v Buy Buy Baby, Inc., 118 F. Supp. 2d 425 (SD N.Y. 2000) (temporal proximity as inference of discriminatory intent)
- Koester v New York Blood Center, 55 A.D.3d 447 (1st Dept 2008) (contextual consideration of proximity and discrimination timing)