Zahler v. Empire Merchants, LLC
1:11-cv-03163
E.D.N.YJan 31, 2012Background
- Zahler, age 55, worked for Empire as a sales representative from 1994 to 2011 and was fully vested in her pension upon termination.
- Empire merged Charmer Industries into Empire in 2007; older salespersons were pressured to retire and Zahler lost high-earning accounts after the merger.
- Zahler’s portfolio shifted to lower-earning accounts, with quotas and a minimum commission of $40,000 per year under the CBA, but enforcement of quotas was inconsistent for others while Zahler was disciplined.
- Promotions, wearables, and promotional support were inconsistently provided to Zahler compared to younger or male/Latino colleagues, suggesting discriminatory treatment.
- Zahler was terminated on March 18, 2011 for failing to earn the minimum commission; the Union refused to arbitrate and offered a severance in exchange for waiving rights.
- This action asserts fourteen causes of action including Title VII, NYSHRL, NYCHRL, ADEA, EPA, FMLA, ERISA § 510, and LMRA-based claims; the court grants partial dismissal and partial denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tortious interference viability | Zahler asserts three interference claims against Empire. | Empire contends Zahler lacked third-party contract/relations and proper interference. | Dismissed on all three; no valid third-party or non-empire interferer; claims fail. |
| FMLA interference viability | Cronin’s demand during leave interfered with Zahler’s FMLA rights. | Interference not plausibly shown; acts were not enough. | Plaintiff plausibly alleges interference; sufficient at this stage. |
| FMLA retaliation viability | Harassing conduct signals retaliation for exercising FMLA rights. | No sufficient adverse action tied to retaliation. | Not dismissed; plausible adverse action under Millea standard. |
| ERISA § 510 viability | Termination affected pension rights and may be motivated by pension interference. | Termination pretext not yet proven; need discovery. | Not dismissed; plaintiff plausibly alleges motive to interfere with pension rights. |
| Wrongful termination preemption | Wrongful termination independent of CBA terms. | Claim preempted by LMRA § 301 as intertwined with CBA. | Dismissed as preempted and duplicative of hybrid § 301 claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Scutti Enters., LLC. v. Park Place Entm’t Corp., 322 F.3d 211 (2d Cir. 2003) (elements for interference with prospective business relations)
- NBT Bancorp Inc. v. Fleet/Norstar Financial Group, Inc., 87 N.Y.2d 614 (1996) (three-party structure for tortious interference; existing contract requires third party)
- Dister v. Cont’l Grp., Inc., 859 F.2d 1108 (2d Cir. 1988) (ERISA § 510 burden-shifting framework)
- Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399 (1988) (preemption framework for CBA interpretation under § 301)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework in discrimination and preemption contexts)
- Mil, 658 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2011) (standard for adverse actions in FMLA retaliation claims)
- Brown v. Pension Bds., 488 F. Supp. 2d 395 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (FMLA interference analysis)
- Patane v. Clark, 508 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2007) (pleading standards for motion to dismiss)