Tate v. Rocketball, Ltd.
45 F. Supp. 3d 268
E.D.N.Y2014Background
- Tate, a gay catering server employed by Levy Restaurant Holdings, served visiting NBA teams at Barclays Center; he alleges Rockets players and staff hurled repeated homophobic slurs at him during a February 2013 visit.
- A Brooklyn Nets representative told Tate to leave and reported the incident; both the Restaurant and Rocketball (owner/operator of the Houston Rockets) were notified.
- After the incident the Restaurant stopped assigning Tate to certain locker-room and overtime-producing shifts; Tate alleges disparate treatment and loss of income compared to heterosexual co-workers.
- Tate sued both the Restaurant and Rocketball under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), claiming Rocketball was liable as an employer, joint employer, or aider/abettor.
- Rocketball moved for dismissal, converted to summary judgment; the court found insufficient evidence that Rocketball was Tate’s employer or aided/abetted discrimination but stayed dismissal 60 days to allow limited discovery into the relationships among Rocketball, its employees, and the Restaurant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rocketball is an "employer" under NYCHRL (joint employment) | Rocketball exercised control over Tate/conditions of his work and thus is a joint employer | No showing of hiring, firing, scheduling, pay, supervision or other control by Rocketball | Court: No evidence of joint employment; summary judgment for Rocketball on this theory (dismissal stayed for limited discovery) |
| Whether Rocketball aided and abetted the Restaurant’s discrimination | Rockets’ slurs initiated a cycle that led Restaurant to exclude Tate; Rocketball thus aided/abetting discrimination | No community of purpose or intent shown; no facts linking Rocketball to Restaurant’s employment decisions | Court: Plaintiff failed to show Rocketball shared intent or participated; aiding and abetting claim fails on present record |
| Whether third-party homophobia/implied discriminatory intent imposes liability on Rocketball | A culture of homophobia in professional basketball shows Rocketball proximately caused Tate’s harm | General culture or past player slurs do not establish proximate cause or employer liability | Court: General third-party homophobia alone is insufficient to impose liability; no proximate causation shown |
| Whether summary judgment is appropriate now or further discovery is needed | Plaintiff opposes summary judgment, seeks discovery into relationships and control | Rocketball seeks judgment on present record | Court: Grants summary judgment but stays dismissal 60 days to permit magistrate-supervised limited discovery into relationship/control questions |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Arculeo v. On-Site Sales & Mktg., LLC, 425 F.3d 193 (joint-employer/constructive employment doctrine)
- Cifarelli v. Vill. of Babylon, 93 F.3d 47 (conclusory allegations insufficient to oppose summary judgment)
- Feingold v. New York, 366 F.3d 138 (aiding and abetting analysis under NYCHRL parallels state law)
- Leibovitz v. New York City Transit Auth., 252 F.3d 179 (limits on expanding harassment claims absent direct targeting)
- Mihalik v. Credit Agricole Cheuvreux N. Am., Inc., 715 F.3d 102 (NYCHRL construed broadly for plaintiffs but not a general civility code)
- Arculeo and related Title VII authorities cited for common-law control factors (hiring, firing, discipline, pay, supervision)