Zhang v. Jenzabar, Inc.
1:12-cv-02988
E.D.N.YMar 30, 2015Background
- Jing Zhang founded Women’s Rights in China (WRIC) and worked with All Girls Allowed (AGA) beginning in 2010; AGA was founded and led by Ling Chai, who converted to Christianity in 2009–2010.
- AGA received major start-up funding and administrative support from Jenzabar and the Jenzabar Foundation; AGA staff (including Zhang) were paid through Jenzabar and used Jenzabar HR/payroll systems.
- AGA’s public materials and later filings contain religious language (prayer, God’s redemptive plan, celebrating the work of God), but AGA’s original Articles and early filings did not identify a religious purpose; parties dispute when and whether religious materials were published or disseminated.
- Disputes arose over Zhang’s participation in prayer meetings and inclusion of religious content in programs; AGA offered Zhang a choice to affirm explicitly religious commitments or transition out; Zhang’s employment was terminated in April 2012.
- Zhang sued for religious discrimination under the NYC Human Rights Law (NYCHRL); WRIC asserted associational discrimination and retaliation based on allegedly withdrawn funding; defendants moved for summary judgment and raised a religious-organization exemption defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AGA is a "religious organization" exempt from NYCHRL liability | AGA’s operations and materials were not consistently religious; exemption shouldn’t apply | AGA is religious in purpose and practice, so exemption bars liability | Denied summary judgment to either side — genuine factual disputes (evolution of materials, dissemination, credibility) |
| Whether Jenzabar (and Chai individually) is liable as Zhang’s employer | Zhang: Jenzabar effectively employed her (payroll, benefits, HR) so liable | Defendants: Jenzabar/Foundation not Zhang’s employer or lacked control | Denied on summary judgment — factual questions about day-to-day relationships preclude resolution; Chai may be liable individually as an owner/decision-maker |
| WRIC’s associational discrimination/retaliation claims | WRIC lost funding as a result of discrimination/retaliation against Zhang and has standing under NYCHRL §8-107(20) | Defendants: WRIC was not an employee, so claims fail | Denied defendants’ motion — court interprets §8-107(20) broadly; WRIC may show independent injury causally linked to discrimination/retaliation |
| Foundation’s liability for aiding and abetting under NYCHRL §8-107(6) | Plaintiffs: Foundation withdrew or directed funding as part of retaliatory/ discriminatory scheme | Defendants: Foundation did not employ or control Zhang, so no liability | Denied summary judgment — factual record permits a jury to infer aiding/abetting if Foundation participated in withdrawal of support |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (standard for genuine issue of material fact)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio, 475 U.S. 574 (nonmovant must present specific facts)
- Loeffler v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp., 582 F.3d 268 (NYCHRL construed independently and liberally)
- Mihalik v. Credit Agricole Cheuvreux N. Am., Inc., 715 F.3d 102 (NYCHRL construed in favor of plaintiffs)
- Gallo v. Prudential Residential Servs., 22 F.3d 1219 (summary judgment inference rule)
- LeBoon v. Lancaster Jewish Community Ctr. Ass’n, 503 F.3d 217 (factors for religious-organization analysis)
- Spencer v. World Vision, 633 F.3d 723 (tests for Title VII religious-organization exemption)
- E.E.O.C. v. Townley Eng’g & Mfg. Co., 859 F.2d 610 (whether entity is primarily religious)
- Malena v. Victoria’s Secret, 886 F. Supp. 2d 349 (aiding and abetting liability under NYCHRL)
- Bartman v. Shenker, 786 N.Y.S.2d 696 (associational discrimination under NYCHRL)