42 F. Supp. 3d 495
S.D.N.Y.2013Background
- Plaintiff (hostess) was kicked by a customer (Kim) while working at Young Bin Café in Flushing, NY on July 1, 2008; she filed a police report and sought medical care.
- Plaintiff alleges that owner Eun M. Sin (formerly a defendant) pressured her to drop the police report, demanded an apology to the customer, and thereafter impeded her ability to work; plaintiff says she was fired shortly after returning to work; Sin denies threatening or firing her.
- Plaintiff sued Young Bin Café, Gabin (a related café), Sin, and Kim asserting negligence, retaliatory discharge under NY and NJ law, tortious interference, and intentional infliction of emotional distress; plaintiff later voluntarily sought to withdraw claims against Sin and Kim and the court dismissed those claims without prejudice.
- Remaining defendants: Young Bin Café and Gabin; plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint adding corporate entities as directed and failed to sign a declaration submitted in opposition.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment; plaintiff cross-moved under Rule 60 to vacate the order dismissing Sin and Kim; the court denied the Rule 60 motion and addressed defendants’ summary judgment motion on the merits.
- Court granted summary judgment for defendants: dismissed NJLAD claim (employment occurred in NY), dismissed NYSHRL/NYCHRL retaliation claims (no protected activity shown), dismissed tortious interference claims (no specific third-party contract or relationship identified), and dismissed intentional infliction of emotional distress as time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to vacate August 6 order (Rule 60) | Sin and Kim are indispensable; vacatur required because their citizenship destroys diversity | Plaintiff previously withdrew claims; no extraordinary circumstances to vacate | Denied — no extraordinary circumstances; motion untimely and legal disagreement insufficient |
| Recover under NJLAD | NJ statute applies (reference to prior NJ employment) | NJLAD applies only to conduct in NJ; events occurred in NY | Dismissed — NJLAD not applicable because alleged acts occurred in NY |
| Retaliatory discharge under NYSHRL/NYCHRL | Filing police report and seeking workers’ comp were protected activities | Plaintiff did not oppose or complain about unlawful discrimination; activities not protected | Dismissed — plaintiff failed to show protected activity or a causal link; NYCHRL claim fails even under liberal standard |
| Tortious interference (business relations/contract) | Sin spread word to room-salon association preventing work | No specific third-party contracts or relationships, no evidence of wrongful means or breach | Dismissed — plaintiff failed to identify enforceable contract or specific business relationships |
| Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) | Conduct caused severe emotional harm | Claim is time-barred (one-year statute) | Dismissed — IIED claim barred by one-year statute of limitations |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment — genuine issue for jury)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (nonmovant must show more than metaphysical doubt)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for retaliation)
- Loeffler v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp., 582 F.3d 268 (NYCHRL construed more broadly in favor of plaintiffs)
- McClellan v. Smith, 439 F.3d 137 (summary judgment standards in employment cases)