Roethel v. Softheon, Inc.
2:23-cv-07894
E.D.N.YSep 30, 2024Background
- Cynthia Roethel sued her former employer, Softheon, Inc., and its outside counsel, Campolo, Middleton & McCormick, LLP (CMM), alleging sex and age discrimination and retaliation under federal, state, and city laws.
- Roethel claimed Softheon favored younger, male employees and retaliated against her after she reported policy violations and supported a colleague’s discrimination claims.
- Roethel alleged CMM aided and abetted Softheon by participating in her termination, including reviewing her self-evaluation and participating in internal investigations.
- CMM moved to dismiss all claims against it under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing it was not Roethel’s employer and that its actions as legal counsel were immune from liability.
- The court only considered the complaint and its exhibits in this motion, disregarding additional affidavits and exhibits filed by the parties.
- The case was before the court on CMM's motion to dismiss; Softheon was not the subject of this decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CMM is primarily liable for discrimination/retaliation under Title VII, ADEA, NYSHRL, NYCHRL | CMM "actively participated" in unlawful conduct | CMM is not Roethel’s employer; no duty or liability | CMM not liable as it was not the employer; claims dismissed with prejudice |
| Whether CMM can be liable for aiding and abetting discrimination or retaliation | CMM helped Softheon create pretext for termination and participated in adverse actions | Roethel’s allegations are speculative, lack facts of participation or shared intent | Aiding and abetting claims dismissed without prejudice; may amend complaint |
| Whether actions by CMM as counsel are immune from third-party liability | CMM was not acting solely as legal counsel but as participant in unlawful acts | Attorneys immune absent evidence of fraud, collusion, malice, or bad faith | No sufficient allegations to overcome immunity; claims dismissed |
| Whether Roethel should be granted leave to amend claims against CMM | Additional facts exist that could support aiding/abetting claims | Failure to state claim; deficiencies not curable | Leave granted to amend only aiding and abetting claims, not primary claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (establishes plausibility standard for complaints)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (clarifies plausibility and sufficiency of factual allegations)
- Gulino v. New York State Educ. Dep't, 460 F.3d 361 (2d Cir. 2006) (outlines limits of Title VII liability to nonemployers)
- Griffin v. Sirva, Inc., 29 N.Y.3d 174 (2017) (explains scope of NYSHRL aiding and abetting liability)
- LaFaro v. N.Y. Cardiothoracic Grp., PLLC, 570 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2009) (motion to dismiss standard)