Melendez v. The New York Foundling, Inc.
7:17-cv-06162
| S.D.N.Y. | Mar 7, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Lorenzo Melendez was an Assistant Vice President for The New York Foundling, overseeing group homes; he was hired in 2001 and promoted to AVP by 2013.
- After a work injury and return in 2015, Melendez reported persistent safety, staffing, and training deficiencies at Staten Island homes and documented these complaints to senior management.
- State audits in 2015–2016 produced three 45-day Statements of Deficiency for facilities under Melendez’s oversight; Melendez investigated and reported suspected staff falsification of records to HR in November 2016.
- On November 21, 2016, Senior VP Jill Gentile terminated Melendez, citing the 45-day Statements and his reassignment; Melendez alleges gender discrimination and retaliation for whistleblowing.
- Melendez also alleges defendant refused to pay severance promised under the employer’s severance plan.
- Procedural posture: Defendant moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6); the Court granted the motion in part and denied it in part (ERISA claim dismissed without prejudice; Title VII and NYLL §740 claims survive).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NY Labor Law § 740 waiver bars Melendez’s Title VII claim | Melendez: §740 does not waive independent federal discrimination claims | Foundling: §740’s waiver should be read broadly to bar claims arising from same conduct | Court: adopts narrow construction of §740 (Collette); Title VII claim not waived |
| Whether severance plan is an ERISA-covered plan | Melendez: Severance plan creates ERISA rights to recover unpaid severance | Foundling: Plan is not an ERISA plan or does not cover Melendez | Court: Plaintiff failed to allege he experienced a "Qualifying Event" under the plan; ERISA claim dismissed without prejudice |
| Whether the court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over NYLL §740 claim | Melendez: federal claims remain, so supplemental jurisdiction appropriate | Foundling: if federal claims dismissed, court should decline supplemental jurisdiction | Court: federal Title VII claim survives, so it retains supplemental jurisdiction |
| Pleading sufficiency under Rule 12(b)(6) | Melendez: allegations plausibly allege discrimination and retaliation | Foundling: facts insufficient, ERISA not alleged properly, waiver applies | Court: Title VII and §740 claims survive plausibility standard; ERISA dismissed for failure to allege plan eligibility |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must be plausible)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (complaint must contain factual enhancement beyond conclusions)
- Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne, 482 U.S. 1 (one-time lump-sum payments usually not ERISA plans)
- Schonholz v. Long Island Jewish Med. Ctr., 87 F.3d 72 (ERISA requires ongoing administrative scheme)
- Collette v. St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hosp., 132 F. Supp. 2d 256 (narrow construction of §740 waiver)