Robles v. Cox & Co.
841 F. Supp. 2d 615
E.D.N.Y2012Background
- Plaintiff Carmen Robles, a former Cox employee, sues for age discrimination under ADEA, Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL, plus retaliation, breach of express/implied contract, and IIED.
- Defendant Cox terminated Robles on April 24, 2009 after earlier disputes, relocations, and a 2001 settlement that reinstated her on a different floor.
- Robles alleges harmful toxin exposure, a pattern of discriminatory acts, and retaliation tied to a 1999 sexual harassment lawsuit.
- 2001 settlement required reinstatement and non-discrimination; Robles was reinstated in 2002 but assigned to the second floor, then to stockroom with younger workers.
- Plaintiff filed NYSDHR/EEOC charges in 2009; NYSDHR found probable cause in 2010; EEOC right-to-sue issued; she filed suit within 90 days of receipt.
- Court grants in part and denies in part: NYCHRL claim dismissed; Title VII retaliation dismissed for failure to state a claim (after exhaustion ruling); IIED and breach of contract claims dismissed; leave to amend granted for 20 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NYCHRL applies to Robles’ termination. | Robles was NYC resident with long employment; ongoing acts impact NYC. | Discriminatory act occurred in Plainview outside NYC; impact analysis controls. | NYCHRL does not apply; dismissal granted. |
| Whether Title VII retaliation claim is exhausted. | Amended charge filed within permitted period. | Amendment not timely or relate-back; exhaustion not met. | Exhaustion claim denied for purposes of dismissal (reconsideration via amendment permitted). |
| Whether Title VII retaliation claim is cognizable on the merits. | Continuing violation doctrine renders timely retaliation claim. | Discrete acts; Morgan not satisfied; too long gap. | Retaliation claim dismissed on merits under Rule 12(b)(6). |
| Whether IIED claim is viable. | Harassment and discriminatory acts constitute outrageous conduct. | Employment discrimination and termination generally not extreme outrageous conduct. | IIED claim dismissed. |
| Whether breach of settlement agreement claim is timely or viable. | 2001 settlement implied continuing obligation; continued breach. | One-time reinstatement obligation; no continuing performance; statute expired 2008. | Breach of contract claim dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoffman v. Parade Publications, 15 N.Y.3d 285 (N.Y. 2010) (limits NYCHRL to conduct impacting NYC or occurring within city boundaries)
- National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2002) (discrete acts not actionable if time-barred; continuing violation doctrine narrow)
- Espinal v. Goord, 558 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2009) (opportunity time gap may support causation in some contexts but not here)
- Morgan v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 232 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2000) (causation can be shown indirectly or directly in retaliation claims)
- Jute v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp., 420 F.3d 166 (2d Cir. 2005) (chronology of time-barred and timely acts analyzed for continuing claim)