1:22-cv-06275
D.N.J.Jun 14, 2023Background
- Plaintiff Sarah Lewis worked for Brett DiNovi & Associates (BDA) beginning in 2017 and was promoted to Human Resources Generalist in 2018.
- Lewis discovered sex-based pay disparities (e.g., a male Compliance Coordinator earning ~$43,000 more) and policy violations by male employees.
- Lewis complained internally, filed an EEOC charge, alleged she was denied promotion due to sex, and alleged retaliation culminating in termination in June 2022.
- Lewis filed an Amended Complaint asserting 13 counts under Title VII, NJLAD, Equal Pay Act, FLSA, and various New Jersey wage statutes.
- Defendants moved to dismiss Counts IV–VI against individual supervisors (DiNovi, Golowski, Holmbeck) and to strike Paragraph 116 (alleging a "pattern and practice" of discrimination/retaliation).
- Plaintiff did not oppose dismissal of Counts IV–VI as to the individuals; the parties disputed whether Paragraph 116 improperly pleaded a standalone pattern-or-practice claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether individual supervisors can be liable as "employers" under the NJLAD (Counts IV–VI) | Lewis does not oppose dismissal; individuals are not employers under the LAD | Individual defendants are not "employers" under the NJLAD and Counts IV–VI should be dismissed | Granted: Counts IV–VI dismissed as to DiNovi, Golowski, and Holmbeck |
| Whether Paragraph 116 (alleging a "pattern and practice" of discrimination/retaliation) must be dismissed as an improper standalone claim | Paragraph 116 is a factual averment supporting individual discrimination/retaliation claims, not a separate pattern-or-practice cause of action | Paragraph 116 improperly asserts a pattern-or-practice cause of action that only the EEOC or a class action may pursue | Denied: Paragraph 116 is a permissible factual allegation and not a standalone pattern-or-practice claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Tarr v. Ciasulli, 181 N.J. 70 (N.J. 2004) (individual supervisor is not an "employer" under the LAD)
- International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (U.S. 1977) (authorizes EEOC pattern-or-practice actions and establishes the Teamsters framework)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (employer’s general pattern of discrimination may support an individual plaintiff’s showing of pretext)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim to survive a motion to dismiss)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard: factual allegations must permit reasonable inference of liability)
- Port Authority of N.Y. & N.J. v. Arcadian Corp., 189 F.3d 305 (3d Cir. 1999) (describing Rule 12(b)(6) screening function)
- Chin v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, 685 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2012) (discusses limits on private pattern-or-practice claims; relevant to defendants’ argument)