Santorio v. Care.com Inc.
1:24-cv-00359
N.D.N.Y.Mar 24, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Giulio Santorio, a 57-year-old disabled veteran, was employed as Senior Director of Global Talent Management at Care.com from January to July 2022, working remotely from Schenectady, New York.
- Care.com is a subsidiary of IAC Inc., a public holding company, and Santorio alleges that IAC played a significant role in employment decisions at Care.com.
- Plaintiff alleges he was subjected to discrimination and eventually terminated after reporting workplace misconduct and discrimination incidents, including racial and inappropriate behavior.
- Plaintiff brought claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Title VII, New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL).
- Defendants moved to dismiss on multiple grounds, including that IAC was not Plaintiff's employer, there was no NYC nexus for the NYCHRL claim, and that Plaintiff failed to state valid claims of discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment.
- The court granted in part and denied in part the motion: some claims survive, particularly Plaintiff’s retaliation claim, while discrimination and hostile work environment claims are dismissed without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| IAC as Employer | IAC exercised significant control and made key employment decisions. | IAC was not Plaintiff’s formal employer. | Sufficient facts alleged for IAC as possible employer; not dismissed at this stage. |
| NYCHRL Applicability | Discriminatory decisions were made/implemented in NYC. | Plaintiff did not work or feel impact in New York City. | NYCHRL claim dismissed—no impact alleged in NYC. |
| Discrimination (Age/Disability) | Termination followed protected complaints; points to discriminatory climate and remarks. | No plausible link to age/disability; no specific discriminatory remarks/acts. | Claims dismissed—insufficient plausible facts. |
| Retaliation | Termination closely followed complaints about workplace discrimination. | No protected activity or causal connection between complaints and termination. | Retaliation claim survives—timing plausible. |
| Hostile Work Environment | Cites unprofessional and abusive conduct by management. | No severe or pervasive conduct tied to protected status. | Dismissed—no plausible claim under any standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for pleading under Rule 8)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (requirement of factual plausibility to survive Rule 12(b)(6))
- Littlejohn v. City of New York, 795 F.3d 297 (standards for discrimination and hostile work environment claims)
- Graham v. Long Island R.R., 230 F.3d 34 (comparator requirements for discrimination claims)
- Sista v. CDC Ixis N. Am., Inc., 445 F.3d 161 (elements for ADA discrimination claims)
- Green v. Town of E. Haven, 952 F.3d 394 (elements for ADEA discrimination claims)