Mazzuchelli v. Immutable PTY LTD
7:23-cv-07885
| S.D.N.Y. | Nov 18, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Natalia Mazzuchelli, an experienced professional, alleges discrimination and harassment following her employment as Director of Partner Success for Immutable Pty. LTD, facilitated by Lightsource Global as the employer services company.
- Mazzuchelli alleges her supervisor at Immutable engaged in unwanted sexual advances, made graphic sexual comments and questioned her ability to work after Mazzuchelli announced her high-risk pregnancy.
- Plaintiff claims she was given a negative performance review and terminated shortly after complaining of discriminatory treatment related to her pregnancy.
- Plaintiff’s claims are asserted under Title VII (federal), the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA); she properly exhausted administrative remedies prior to suit.
- Immutable and Lightsource each moved to dismiss the claims against them under Rule 12(b)(6), also contesting employer status, personal jurisdiction, and territorial reach of claims.
- The opinion addresses the sufficiency of the allegations for each statutory claim and resolves motions to dismiss and to strike portions of the complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Lightsource Plaintiff's statutory employer? | Lightsource extended/employment agreement, administered termination. | Lightsource claims it only provides services, lacks day-to-day authority. | Not employer for Title VII, FEHA, NYSHRL claims; dismissed without prejudice. |
| Can Plaintiff state FEHA claims as a non-resident? | Harassment/discrimination occurred on work trips to CA, sufficient for FEHA. | Conduct occurred mainly in NY; CA law doesn't apply. | FEHA claims dismissed; insufficient California nexus. |
| Sufficiency of harassment claims (FEHA, NYSHRL, Title VII) | Facts show hostile environment by supervisor’s sexual comments/advances. | Conduct not severe or pervasive, not within NY for NYSHRL/CA for FEHA. | Harassment claims dismissed; not sufficiently severe, and lack territorial scope. |
| Are discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII/NYSHRL adequately pled? | Close timing between complaint/disclosure and termination supports inference; qualified and high performing. | No actionable discrimination/retaliation. | Discrimination and retaliation claims survive motion to dismiss. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (standard for plausibility on motion to dismiss)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (clarifies pleading requirements for federal complaints)
- Guz v. Bechtel Nat'l Inc., 24 Cal. 4th 317 (2000) (articulates FEHA discrimination prima facie requirements)
- St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993) (discusses minimal burden for establishing prima facie case)
- Texas Dep't of Cmty. Affs. v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981) (explains burden shifting in discrimination cases)
- Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hosp., 214 Cal. App. 3d 590 (Ct. App. 1989) (hostile work environment standard under FEHA)
- Krause v. Lancer & Loader Grp., LLC, 965 N.Y.S.2d 312 (Sup. Ct. 2013) (close proximity of pregnancy disclosure to termination supports inference of discrimination)
- Malena v. Victoria's Secret Direct, LLC, 886 F. Supp. 2d 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (pregnancy is a protected class under Title VII/NYSHRL)