MAIE IBRAHIM v. FIDELITY BROKERAGE SERVICES LLC.
1:19-cv-03821
| S.D.N.Y. | Jan 9, 2020Background
- Ibrahim worked at Fidelity’s Garden City branch (Dec 2011–~2015), where she complained internally about a manager; those incidents occurred outside NYC.
- She transferred to Fidelity’s Manhattan office (promoted July 2015) and alleges ongoing sex-based harassment through April 2018 by manager Elliott Wiesen (repeated unwelcome advances, sexual comments, stereotyping about pregnancy) and a 2016 incident where Roger Young allegedly touched her genitals at a work event.
- Ibrahim alleges multiple written complaints to Fidelity HR and the CEO; Fidelity’s only remedial step was requiring Ibrahim to meet alone with the alleged harasser.
- Ibrahim resigned April 25, 2018, then sued under the NYCHRL for hostile work environment, constructive discharge, and retaliation; Fidelity moved to dismiss the hostile-environment and constructive-discharge claims and to strike Garden City allegations.
- The Court denied the motion to dismiss, granted in part the motion to strike (struck paragraphs 21–31 detailing Garden City harassment because those paragraphs did not allege what was reported to HR), and gave Ibrahim leave to amend to allege specific facts about what she told Fidelity and Fidelity’s responses.
Issues
| Issue | Ibrahim's Argument | Fidelity's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Garden City allegations should be stricken under Rule 12(f) | Garden City complaints show a pattern of Fidelity’s failure to remediate, supporting constructive discharge | Garden City conduct occurred outside NYC and is time‑barred and immaterial | Court struck ¶¶21–31 (harassment detail) but denied broader strike; allowed amendment to allege what was reported and Fidelity’s response |
| Whether Ibrahim plausibly pleaded a NYCHRL discrimination/hostile‑work‑environment claim | Alleged unwanted physical contact, sexual comments, stereotypes and reduced duties show she was treated “less well” due to sex | Allegations lack nexus to sex; no discriminatory intent pleaded | Pleading adequate: sexualized conduct and sex‑stereotyping plausibly infer discriminatory motive under the NYCHRL |
| Whether Ibrahim plausibly pleaded constructive discharge | Repeated harassment, threats about pregnancy, reduced responsibilities, adverse reviews, and ineffective HR response made conditions intolerable | Conditions not objectively intolerable; resignation not compelled as a matter of law | Pleading adequate: allegations of deliberate indifference and lack of meaningful remedy plausibly show conditions a reasonable person could find intolerable |
| Proper framing/pleading under the NYCHRL (labels like "hostile work environment") | Claims labeled as hostile environment and constructive discharge but seek relief under NYCHRL’s broad terms-and-conditions protection | Fidelity relied on Title VII‑style labels and stricter standards | Court clarified NYCHRL is broader than Title VII; labels are immaterial—claim should be pleaded as NYCHRL discrimination with constructive‑discharge theory as relevant to damages |
Key Cases Cited
- Lipsky v. Commonwealth United Corp., 551 F.2d 887 (2d Cir. 1976) (Rule 12(f) strike disfavored unless no admissible evidence would support the allegations)
- Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2019) (motions to strike material as immaterial/impertinent are disfavored)
- Hoffman v. Parade Publications, 15 N.Y.3d 285 (N.Y. 2010) (NYCHRL reaches only conduct that impacts New York City)
- Kassner v. 2nd Ave. Delicatessen Inc., 496 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 2007) (NYCHRL claims subject to three‑year limitations period)
- Mihalik v. Credit Agricole Cheuvreux N. Am., 715 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2013) (NYCHRL construed broadly; need not show severe or pervasive conduct or materially adverse action)
- Meritor Sav. Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (U.S. 1986) (Title VII hostile‑work‑environment framework; severity/pervasiveness standard)
- Shultz v. Congregation Shearith Israel, 867 F.3d 298 (2d Cir. 2017) (elements and standards applicable to constructive discharge)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for surviving a Rule 12(b)(6) motion)