719 F.Supp.3d 318
S.D.N.Y.2024Background
- Victoria Nezaj, a gay woman, worked for roughly six months as events and floor manager at PS450 Bar & Restaurant in NYC before being terminated.
- Nezaj alleges gender and sexual orientation discrimination and retaliation, primarily by managers Terry Brooks and David Miller, asserting a hostile work environment for women and LGBTQIA+ employees.
- She recounted sexist, homophobic remarks from Brooks, and claims Miller condoned or laughed at such conduct, did not intervene, and treated her less favorably in scheduling and other management tasks.
- After reporting Brooks’ inappropriate behavior to higher management, Nezaj claims her work responsibilities were reduced and she was eventually terminated, allegedly as retaliation.
- Nezaj sued PS450, related corporate entities, and individual supervisors under NY State and City Human Rights Laws (NYSHRL, NYCHRL) for discrimination, retaliation, and aiding and abetting.
- The court addressed defendant Miller’s motion to dismiss claims against him for failure to state a claim (Rule 12(b)(6)).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct liability for gender discrimination | Miller personally treated Nezaj less well based on gender under NYCHRL. | Miller, as non-employer, can’t be liable; actions not discriminatory. | Denied dismissal: Sufficient allegations for direct liability under NYCHRL. |
| Aiding/abetting gender discrimination | Miller aided and abetted Brooks’ discriminatory actions, including by laughing, condoning, or failing to act. | Status alone is insufficient for liability; no actual participation. | Denied dismissal: Sufficient allegations of participation for aiding/abetting. |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | Miller allowed/condoned environment hostile to LGBTQIA+ workers. | Allegations are conclusory; no specific discriminatory acts by Miller. | Granted dismissal: No well-pleaded facts of Miller’s conduct on this ground. |
| Retaliation (NYSHRL/NYCHRL) | Miller retaliated after Nezaj’s complaint: excluded, reduced duties, and participated in her firing. | Acts not retaliatory or causally linked to complaint. | Denied dismissal: Plausibly alleged protected activity, adverse action, and causality. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleading under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (facial plausibility requirement for complaints)
- Feingold v. New York, 366 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2004) (standards for aiding and abetting liability under NYSHRL/NYCHRL)
- Mihalik v. Credit Agricole Cheuvreux N. Am., Inc., 715 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2013) (NYCHRL discrimination standard — "treated less well" test)
- Doe v. Bloomberg L.P., 143 N.Y.S.3d 286 (N.Y. 2021) (who qualifies as an employer under NYSHRL/NYCHRL)
- Kaytor v. Elec. Boat Corp., 609 F.3d 537 (2d Cir. 2010) (elements of retaliation claim under McDonnell Douglas framework)
- Vega v. Hempstead Union Free Sch. Dist., 801 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2015) (pleading standard for discrimination and retaliation claims)