425 F.Supp.3d 234
S.D.N.Y.2019Background
- Plaintiffs John Ulrich and Lawrence DeBellis were employees/officers of Teamsters Local 812 and sued the Union and several officers alleging Title VII and NYSHRL retaliation (and state defamation, later withdrawn) after their terminations/suspensions.
- Ulrich alleges he repeatedly complained (verbally and later in writing) about Vice President Vitta’s sexual harassment and about improper collective-bargaining/health-fund practices, including a Dec. 2, 2015 meeting with President Weber.
- Shortly after Ulrich’s December 2015 complaints, an investigation into alleged misconduct (bribery) began in Jan. 2016 and Ulrich was suspended in Feb. 2016; Ulrich contends the investigation was retaliatory.
- DeBellis does not allege independent protected complaints; he was questioned as a potential witness and alleges adverse action based on his association with Ulrich.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the remaining claims (Counts VIII–X); Plaintiffs withdrew defamation claims; Court addressed Title VII/NYSHRL retaliation and NYSHRL aiding-and-abetting theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether individual defendants can be liable under Title VII | Plaintiffs sued named officers (seek relief against officers) | Individual liability under Title VII is not permitted | Individual Title VII claims dismissed with prejudice |
| Whether Ulrich plausibly alleged retaliation (protected activity, causation, temporal link, good faith) | Ulrich alleges informal and later written complaints about harassment and improper conduct; investigation began ~1 month after his Dec. 2, 2015 complaint and suspension followed | Defendants argue no causal link; investigation was independent intervening event; Ulrich lacked good-faith protected activity | Court finds allegations (timing + investigation/suspension) sufficient at pleading stage; retaliation claim survives |
| Whether Ulrich alleged aiding-and-abetting liability under NYSHRL against individual officers | Ulrich alleges Weber and Vitta orchestrated/participated in investigation and meetings that led to retaliatory action | Defendants argue lack of particularized facts showing participation | Court finds pleadings sufficiently allege participation by Weber and Vitta; aiding-and-abetting claim survives at this stage |
| Whether DeBellis stated a retaliation claim (including associational retaliation) | DeBellis contends he suffered adverse action by association with Ulrich/witness status | Defendants: DeBellis alleged no independent protected activity; associational retaliation is not cognizable here | Court dismisses DeBellis’s retaliation and aiding-and-abetting claims with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard requires factual allegations sufficient to make claim plausible)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (court must accept well-pleaded facts and reject mere legal conclusions when assessing plausibility)
- Weixel v. Bd. of Educ. of City of New York, 287 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2002) (elements for retaliation claim: protected activity, employer’s knowledge, adverse action, causal connection)
- Treglia v. Town of Manlius, 313 F.3d 713 (2d Cir. 2002) (prima facie retaliation burden is de minimis; temporal proximity can support causation)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (retaliatory actions that would dissuade a reasonable worker are actionable)
- Littlejohn v. City of New York, 795 F.3d 297 (2d Cir. 2015) (informal complaints can constitute protected activity under anti-retaliation law)
- Tomka v. Seiler Corp., 66 F.3d 1295 (2d Cir. 1995) (co-worker personal participation can support aiding-and-abetting liability under NYSHRL)
- Feingold v. New York, 366 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2004) (individuals may be liable under NYSHRL for actual participation in discriminatory conduct)
- Crawford v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson Cty., Tenn., 555 U.S. 271 (2009) (statutory protection extends to employees who respond to employer investigations)