Lorquet v. Century 21 Department Stores LLC, 1:15-cv-05965

Nolita Lorquet, an African-American sales associate, worked at Century 21's Manhattan store from July 2013 to May 2014 and resigned for medical reasons.
Lorquet alleged supervisors closely monitored and publicly reprimanded her, diminished her confidence, and at one point a supervisor pointed to another Black employee and told her to "go help one of her own."
She also alleged a supervisor instructed her not to speak with customers; she contends this was race-based but pleads no comparative facts.
Lorquet filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights (no probable cause), the EEOC adopted that finding and issued a Notice of Right to Sue, and she filed this federal action shortly thereafter.
Century 21 moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and sought an order precluding Lorquet from refiling employment-discrimination claims as a vexatious litigant.
The Court treated pro se pleadings liberally but evaluated whether facts alleged plausibly established Title VII hostile-work-environment discrimination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lorquet pleaded a Title VII hostile work environment claim	Supervisors' close scrutiny, public reprimands, a hanger incident, and the "one of her own" comment show race-based hostile environment	Allegations are routine workplace grievances and an isolated ambiguous comment; do not plausibly show discrimination or severe/pervasive hostility	Dismissed: allegations insufficient to infer discriminatory animus or severe/pervasive hostility
Whether isolated remarks or singular incidents can support a claim	The pointing/comment and other incidents evidence discrimination	Isolated or occasional comments and close supervision without comparative facts are insufficient	Isolated remark insufficient absent extraordinary severity or pattern; dismissal affirmed
Whether speculation that restrictions on customer interaction were racial is adequate	That instruction indicated race-based disparate treatment	No facts showing the rule applied differently to non-Black employees or was race-motivated	Speculation alone is insufficient; dismissal affirmed
Whether a pre-filing injunction/sanction barring refiling is warranted	N/A (Lorquet did not oppose by showing justification)	Century 21 sought to preclude refiling based on Lorquet's history of litigation and refiling dismissed claims	Denied: blanket preclusion not justified though plaintiff warned against reasserting same claims

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaint must state a plausible claim to survive dismissal)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (allegations must raise claim above speculative level)
Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (hostile work environment standard: severe or pervasive conduct)
Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (consider all circumstances in hostile-work-environment analysis)
Littlejohn v. City of New York, 795 F.3d 297 (2d Cir. 2015) (elements and pleading standard for Title VII claims at motion-to-dismiss stage)
Vega v. Hempstead Union Free Sch. Dist., 801 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2015) (plaintiff need only sustain a minimal burden to show facts suggesting discriminatory motivation)
Alfano v. Costello, 294 F.3d 365 (2d Cir. 2002) (need to plausibly plead that hostile conduct occurred because of protected status)
Redd v. New York Div. of Parole, 678 F.3d 166 (2d Cir. 2012) (Title VII is not a general civility code; routine workplace slights do not state a claim)
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (workplace indignities insufficient to establish discrimination absent more severe effects)
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se pleadings are construed liberally)