LAWRENCE E. KAHN, District Judge.
This action arises out of Plaintiff Debra Bader's ("Plaintiff") former employment
Plaintiff is a New York resident and was employed at the New Hartford, New York, facility of SMC, a division of Precision Castparts Corporation ("PCC"), during the period relevant to this action. Compl. ¶ 2; Dkt. Nos. 22-11 ("SMF") ¶¶ 3-4, 6; 38 ("SMF Response") ¶¶ 3-4, 6. From 1978 to the relevant period, she worked in SMC's Inspection Department, which ensures that SMC's metal alloys are manufactured to specification, errors are captured, and appropriate documentation is maintained about the products. SMF ¶¶ 12-13, 37-38; SMF Resp. ¶¶ 12-13, 37-38. While Plaintiff was an SMC employee, she was a member of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers and Local Lodge 2310 (the "Union"), which had a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") with SMC. SMF ¶¶ 5-6, 9; SMF Resp. ¶¶ 5-6, 9. Any discipline imposed by SMC on Union workers was subject to CBA requirements. SMF ¶ 25; SMF Resp. ¶ 25. Discipline took several forms, including verbal counseling, written warning, suspension, and termination. SMF ¶ 24; SMF Resp. ¶ 24. Union workers could file grievances challenging discipline. SMF ¶ 26; SMF Resp. ¶ 26.
SMC has a database of employee work records to track employee work histories. SMF ¶¶ 28-29; SMF Resp. ¶¶ 28-29. Each employee work record lists categories of reviews that may have been presented to an employee, e.g., commendation, training, coaching, reminder, verbal counsel, and written warning. SMF ¶ 30; SMF Resp. ¶ 30. Employee work records were issued for Plaintiff during her employment at SMC, including for discipline. SMF ¶ 40; SMF Resp. ¶ 40. These included: a reminder on February 19, 2008; a verbal counsel on March 16, 2009; two written warnings on February 17, 2010; two written warnings accompanied by a three-day suspension on March 1, 2010; and a written warning on April 13, 2010. SMF ¶¶ 46-51; SMF Resp. ¶¶ 46-51. The Union filed grievances relating to the two written warnings issued on February 17, 2010, one of the written warnings issued on March 1, 2010, and the written warning issued on April 13, 2010. SMF ¶¶ 64-66; SMF Resp. ¶¶ 64-66. SMC also issued discipline to five male employees of the Inspection Department in 2010, including written warnings, suspensions, demotion, and "Last Chance Agreements" ("LCAs"). SMF ¶¶ 71-77; SMF Resp. ¶¶ 71-77.
SMC maintains an anti-harassment policy, and its parent company, PCC, maintains a "Code of Business Conduct and Ethics," which includes a nondiscrimination statement. SMF ¶¶ 78-79, 81; SMF Resp. ¶¶ 78-79, 81. Plaintiff received a copy of the PCC Code on February 13, 2007. SMF ¶¶ 79-80; SMF Resp. ¶¶ 79-80. During the relevant period, PCC employed a service called "EthicsPoint," which enabled SMC employees to complain, via telephone or the Internet, about potential violations of the PCC Code, other company policies, or the law. SMF ¶¶ 83-84; SMF Resp. ¶¶ 83-84. Plaintiff used this service on July 9, 2009, to file a complaint. SMF ¶ 85; SMF Resp. ¶ 85. Sometime in the next few weeks, Plaintiff received a telephone call from SMC's Division Director of Organizational Development Dan Dohar ("Dohar"), who spoke to her for approximately half an hour. SMF ¶¶ 86, 88; SMF Resp. ¶¶ 86, 88. On September 20, 2009, Plaintiff received a response through the EthicsPoint system stating, among other things, that neither her concerns nor interviews conducted as part of a review of her concerns indicated harassment, discrimination, or other violation of company policies, or that she was being targeted for discipline or termination. SMF ¶ 89; SMF Resp. ¶ 89.
On April 22, 2010, Plaintiff, or a former SMC employee on her behalf, filed another EthicsPoint report. SMF ¶ 91; SMF Resp. ¶ 91. SMC's Vice President for Human Resources responded to Plaintiff's report on April 27, 2010, noting that the Union had already filed grievances on Plaintiff's behalf regarding her concerns. SMF ¶¶ 92-93; SMF Resp. ¶¶ 92-93. On April 29, 2010, Plaintiff submitted medical documentation that she could not return to work until further notice due to carpal tunnel syndrome in her left wrist. SMF ¶ 62; SMF Resp. ¶ 62. On June 21, 2010, the Union advised SMC that it would not proceed to arbitration on Plaintiff's grievances because she was on medical leave of absence. SMF ¶ 68; SMF Resp. ¶ 68.
Plaintiff then filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights ("Division") on December 14, 2010. SMF ¶ 94; SMF Resp. ¶ 94; see also Dkt. No. 35-8 ("Division Complaint"). The Division Complaint was dismissed for administrative convenience on February 1, 2011, and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") issued Plaintiff a Notice of Right to Sue on April 4, 2011. SMF ¶ 95; SMF Resp. ¶ 95. Plaintiff commenced an action in New York Supreme Court, Oneida County, on June 22, 2011, which Defendants removed to the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 on July 7, 2011. See Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff filed her Complaint with the Court on September 9, 2011. Thereafter, on October 18, 2011, Plaintiff sent SMC a letter declaring her "intention to retire from employment at SMC-New Hartford; effective October 28, 2011." SMF ¶ 69; SMF Resp. ¶ 69. SMC sent a confirmatory letter, dated October 24, 2011, which Plaintiff countersigned. SMF ¶ 70; SMF Resp. ¶ 70.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1) a party may, within certain defined time periods, amend a pleading as a matter of course. If amendment as a matter of course is not permitted, a pleading may be amended only if the opposing party consents in writing or the court grants leave. See FED.R.CIV.P. 15(a)(2). Generally, a court "should freely give leave when justice so requires." Id. However, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) requires the issuance of scheduling orders that "must limit the time to ... amend the pleadings." Such scheduling orders "may be modified only for good cause." Id. Thus, when a motion to amend is made after a scheduling order's deadline for doing so has expired, "the lenient standard under Rule 15(a) ... must be balanced against ... Rule 16(b)." Grochowski v. Phoenix Constr., 318 F.3d 80, 87 (2d Cir.2003). There is good cause for permitting modification of pleading-amendment deadlines where the party moving for modification has been diligent in doing so. Id. "[G]ood cause may not be established where the facts underlying the claim were known to the plaintiff at the time the action was filed." Alexander v. Westbury Union Free Sch. Dist., 829 F.Supp.2d 89, 118 (E.D.N.Y.2011). "Moreover, while the absence of prejudice to a non-moving party may be relevant in determining whether leave to amend should be granted under Rule 15(a), it does not fulfill the `good cause' requirement of Rule 16(b)." Carnrite v. Granada Hosp. Group, Inc., 175 F.R.D. 439, 446 (W.D.N.Y.1997) (quotation marks omitted).
On December 1, 2011, the honorable David E. Peebles, U.S. Magistrate Judge, entered an Order setting a March 1, 2012 deadline for pleading amendments and an August 31, 2012 deadline for the completion of discovery. See Dkt. No. 13 ("Scheduling Order"). The discovery deadline was then extended until December 31, 2012; the pleading-amendment deadline was never extended. See Text Order of November 16, 2012. See generally Dkt.
Plaintiff filed her Motion to Amend on April 9, 2013. She seeks to add new allegations regarding the protected activity for which she was allegedly retaliated against by Defendants. See Proposed Am. Compl. ¶¶ 9, 11, 52, 61. Specifically, she seeks to add allegations that she was retaliated against after she: (1) complained to the Union about her supervisor Brian Allen's ("Allen") "sexually charged, offensive, and crude remarks"; and (2) was named as witness and deposed in her former coworker Linda DiFillippo's ("DiFillippo") discrimination lawsuit against SMC ("the DiFillippo Action"). Id. ¶¶ 9, 11. In support of the Motion to Amend, Plaintiff's attorney submits an affidavit in which she argues that: (1) Defendants will not be prejudiced by the amendments; (2) the amendments will not cause any delay; (3) the Motion to Amend is not brought in bad faith; and (4) the amendments are meritorious. Dkt. No. 37 ("Bosman Declaration") ¶ 14.
Plaintiff waited until more than a year after the expiration of the pleading-amendment deadline, and more than thee months after the discovery period closed, to bring the Motion to Amend. She has offered no explanation for her delay. See generally id. All of the facts upon which the new allegations are premised were known to Plaintiff well before she filed the Motion to Amend. Plaintiff's counsel was undoubtedly aware by January 11, 2010, that Plaintiff had been named as a witness in the DiFillippo Action, as she herself did
Yet despite being aware, even before she commenced this action, of the protected activity she now seeks to add to her Complaint, Plaintiff failed to move to amend in a timely fashion. She has offered no explanation for this delay; she has not, for example, asserted that she did not learn she was retaliated against for this protected activity until after the amendment and discovery periods expired. See generally Bosman Decl. Plaintiff has not shown good cause for her delay. The Motion to Amend is therefore denied.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 instructs a court to grant summary judgment if "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Although "[f]actual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary" will not preclude summary judgment, "summary judgment will not lie if ... the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); see also Taggart v. Time, Inc., 924 F.2d 43, 46 (2d Cir.1991).
The party seeking summary judgment bears the burden of informing the court of the basis for the motion and of identifying those portions of the record that the moving party claims will demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). If the moving party shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to demonstrate "the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Id. This requires the nonmoving party to do "more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986).
At the same time, a court must resolve all ambiguities and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000); Nora Beverages, Inc. v. Perrier Grp. of Am., Inc., 164 F.3d 736, 742 (2d Cir.1998). A court's duty in ruling on a motion for summary judgment is "carefully limited" to finding genuine disputes of fact, "not to deciding them." Gallo v. Prudential Residential
Plaintiff brings ADEA and HRL claims for age-based disparate treatment and Title VII and HRL claims for gender-based disparate treatment. See Compl. ¶¶ 30-32, 39-41, 48-50, 57-59. All of these claims proceed according to the familiar burden-shifting framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). See Maraschiello v. City of Buffalo Police Dep't, 709 F.3d 87, 92-93 (2d Cir.2013); Gorzynski v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 596 F.3d 93, 105-06 (2d Cir.2010); Salamon v. Our Lady of Victory Hosp., 514 F.3d 217, 226 n. 9 (2d Cir.2008).
To make out a prima facie case of disparate treatment, a plaintiff must show that: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for the position she held; (3) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) the adverse action took place under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. Ruiz v. County of Rockland, 609 F.3d 486, 491-92 (2d Cir.2010). "A plaintiff's burden of establishing a prima facie case is de minimis." Abdu-Brisson v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 239 F.3d 456, 467 (2d Cir.2001). Once the plaintiff meets this minimal burden, the employer must articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. Reynolds v. Barrett, 685 F.3d 193, 202 (2d Cir.2012). Following this articulation, "the McDonnell Douglas presumptions disappear from the case, and the governing standard is simply whether the evidence, taken as a whole, is sufficient to support a reasonable inference that prohibited discrimination occurred." James v. N.Y. Racing Ass'n, 233 F.3d 149, 156 (2d Cir.2000). A court may examine the "the strength of the plaintiff's prima facie case, the probative value of the proof that the employer's explanation is false, and any other evidence that supports [or undermines] the employer's case." Id. (alterations in original and quotation marks omitted).
Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiff is a member of a protected class by virtue of her age and gender or that she was qualified for her position. However, they argue that she cannot make out a prima facie case of discrimination, because: (1) she was not subjected to any adverse employment action; and (2) even if she was subject to adverse employment actions, they did not take place in circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. See Mem. at 9-12; Reply at 19-21.
Only employment actions that are "adverse" are actionable under the ADEA, Title VII, and the HRL. Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 137-38 (2d Cir.2003). "An adverse employment action is one which is more disruptive than a mere inconvenience or an alteration of job responsibilities."
Plaintiff advances the following putatively adverse employment actions: (1) a January 2007 written warning; (2) a February 2007 written warning; (3) a February 2008 "Reminder"; (4) a March 2009 verbal counsel; (5) a June 2009 written warning; (6) two February 2010 written warnings; (7) two March 2010 written warnings; (8) a three-day suspension in March 2010; (9) a ten-day suspension in April 2010; (10) a Last Chance Agreement proposed on April 15, 2010; (11) a demotion and written warning on April 30, 2010; and (12) constructive discharge.
Verbal and written warnings generally do not constitute adverse employment actions unless they lead to more substantial employment actions that are adverse. See Tepperwien v. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 663 F.3d 556, 559-70 (2d Cir.2011) (finding that an employee counseling was not actionable because it did not place the employee in a progressive disciplinary process); Krishnapillai v. Donahoe, No. 09-CV-1022, 2013 WL 5423724 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2013) ("Courts in this circuit have found that reprimands, threats of disciplinary action and excessive scrutiny do not constitute adverse employment actions in the absence of other negative results such as a decrease in pay or being placed on probation." (quotation marks omitted)).
In this case, all pre-2010 impositions of discipline were counselings or warnings and none served as the basis for future adverse employment actions. While Plaintiff alleges that each disciplinary act was "part of a progressive discipline system" that "allowed Defendants to increase the severity of the discipline," the deposition passage she cites for this proposition states that SMC does not have a progressive discipline system. See Resp. at 9; Dkt. No. 28 ("Dabbs Deposition") at 28. As discussed infra, Plaintiff's suspensions, demotion, and proposed LCA were premised on her 2010 written warnings; Plaintiff has offered no evidence that any of these adverse employment actions were also based on her pre-2010 discipline. Therefore, the pre-2010 disciplinary actions do not constitute adverse employment actions.
Defendants argue that Plaintiff's three-and ten-day suspensions do not constitute adverse employment actions because they were merely the "reasonable application of pre-existing disciplinary policies." Mem. at 10. As Defendants note, the Second Circuit has indicated that, at least with respect to certain kinds of personnel actions, no adverse employment action occurs "where the employer merely enforces its preexisting disciplinary policies in a reasonable manner." Joseph v. Leavitt, 465 F.3d 87, 91 (2d Cir.2006). But Defendants' argument that this principle
Second, even if the "reasonable application of a preexisting disciplinary policy" standard applied to Plaintiff's unpaid suspensions, Defendants have not demonstrated that Plaintiff was disciplined pursuant to a preexisting disciplinary policy. Defendants state that Plaintiff received her first suspension because she had received three written warnings. See Dkt. No. 22-9 at 30-31 ("First Suspension Notice"); see Dkt. No. 22-7 ("Farley Declaration") ¶ 35; Resp. at 5. But they point to no preexisting policy requiring or contemplating a suspension after three written warnings. See generally Mem.; Reply. Nor do Defendants point to any preexisting policy requiring the imposition of the warnings upon which the suspension was based; at most, Defendants have demonstrated that they imposed a range of discipline on some of Plaintiff's coworkers for somewhat similar offenses and that some of the conduct for which Plaintiff was disciplined became a focus of SMC's qualitycontrol efforts. See Reply at 18-19.
As to the ten-day suspension, Defendants state merely that "[t]he Company decided it would suspend [Plaintiff]" and that the ten-day period was chosen because of "the number of disciplinary issues involving Plaintiff." Mem. at 5. Again, Defendants point to no preexisting disciplinary policy underlying their decisions. While the suspension notice states that Plaintiff was suspended per Article 9.01 of the CBA, see Dkt. No. 22-9 at 34-35 ("Second Suspension Notice"), that CBA provision merely lays out disciplinary investigation and hearing procedures as well as a general "just cause" discipline standard; it does not require or contemplate the suspension of an employee for five written warnings or touch upon the underlying conduct for which Plaintiff was disciplined. See CBA Article 9.01; cf. CBA Article 9.05 (mandating a three-day suspension after two written warnings for absences); Mugavero, 680 F.Supp.2d at 568 (upholding jury finding of an adverse employment action where no evidence was offered as to whether the plaintiff's suspension was "normal procedure" under the defendant's disciplinary policies).
Finally, and most significantly, even if Plaintiff was disciplined pursuant to a preexisting disciplinary policy, Defendants have not demonstrated that the application of that policy was reasonable. Under Joseph and Brown, discipline applied discriminatorily is applied unreasonably. See Joseph, 465 F.3d at 93 n. 1 (holding that placement on paid administrative leave because of race constitutes an adverse employment action, because the "terms and conditions of employment do not include the possibility that an employee could be suspended purely because of his or her race"); Brown, 673 F.3d 141, 151 (2d Cir. 2012) (holding that black plaintiff's suspension was not an adverse action because, inter alia, he failed to offer "proof of circumstances when a white officer ... engaged in behavior comparable to his and was not suspended"); see also Lewis v. City of Buffalo Police Dep't, 311 Fed. Appx. 417, 421 (2d Cir.2009) (noting that, under Joseph, pretextual discipline is unreasonable); Mugavero, 680 F.Supp.2d at 568 (affirming jury verdict that suspension was adverse where there was sufficient evidence to find that the discipline was discriminatorily applied); Hurt v. Donahoe, No. 07-CV-4201, 2011 WL 10526984, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2011) (finding application of preexisting disciplinary policies reasonable where they were uniformly
Plaintiff's three-and ten-day suspensions in 2010 were premised on the four written warnings she received in February and March 2010. See First Suspension Notice; Second Suspension Notice. Thus, because the suspensions were adverse, the warnings were as well. See Aiello v. Stamford Hosp., No. 9-CV-1161, 2011 WL 3439459, at *13 (D.Conn. Aug. 8, 2011) (holding that written warnings constituted adverse actions because the employee's termination was explicitly premised on those warnings); cf. Weeks v. New York, 273 F.3d 76, 86 (2d Cir.2001) (finding insufficient evidence that notice of discipline constituted an adverse action where plaintiff did not "describe its effect or ramifications [and] how or why the effect would be serious").
Plaintiff argues that Defendants' LCA proposal, as well as a warning and accompanying demotion out of the Inspection Department on April 30, 2010, constitute adverse actions. See Resp. at 8-10. But Plaintiff never signed the LCA and it therefore never went into effect. The LCA thus never changed the terms and conditions of Plaintiff's employment and cannot constitute an adverse employment action. See Dkt. No. 35-3 at 41-42 ("Proposed LCA").
However, the combination of the LCA proposal, uneffected demotion, other discipline, and a hostile work environment do give rise to a viable claim of constructive discharge. Constructive discharge occurs where an "employer, rather than discharging [an employee] directly, intentionally creates a work atmosphere so intolerable that he is forced to quit involuntarily." Terry, 336 F.3d at 151-52. An employee need not show that an employer acted with the specific intent to cause the employee to resign; rather, she need only show that the employer's actions were "deliberate and not merely negligent or ineffective." Petrosino v. Bell Atl., 385 F.3d 210, 229-30 (2d Cir.2004) (quotation marks and alterations omitted).
Constructive discharge claims are often premised on the same type of non-discrete conduct underlying a hostile work environment claim, although the standard for constructive discharge is higher. Mandel v. Champion Int'l Corp., 361 F.Supp.2d 320, 327 (S.D.N.Y.2005); see also Whidbee v. Garzarelli Food Specialties, Inc., 223 F.3d 62, 74 (2d Cir.2000) (denying summary judgment on hostile work environment claim but granting summary
A demotion, particularly one that is accompanied by a significant loss of salary, prestige or responsibilities, or is otherwise "humiliating," may also, on its own, give rise to a constructive discharge claim. Pa. State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129, 133, 124 S.Ct. 2342, 159 L.Ed.2d 204 (2004); see also Goss v. Exxon Office Systems Co., 747 F.2d 885 (3d Cir.1984) (finding sufficient evidence of constructive discharge where plaintiff sales representative was removed from prior territory); Alfieri v. SYSCO Food Servs., 192 F.Supp.2d 14, 24 (W.D.N.Y.2001) (noting that constructive discharge may be found where an employee is threatened with demotion or has her duties changed); Dean v. Westchester County Dist. Attorney's Office, 119 F.Supp.2d 424, 431 (S.D.N.Y.2000) ("A demotion with a reduction in pay and loss of employee benefits, when accompanied by evidence of malicious intent, can establish constructive discharge."); Riedinger v. D'Amicantino, 974 F.Supp. 322, 330 (S.D.N.Y.1997) (noting that constructive discharge may be based on a change to an employee's job title or responsibilities).
An employee is also constructively discharged where she resigns in the face of inevitable termination. See Bragg v. Navistar Int'l Transp. Corp., 164 F.3d 373, 377 (7th Cir.1998) ("Constructive discharge exists to give Title VII protection to a plaintiff who decides to quit rather than wait around to be fired."); Chertkova v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 92 F.3d 81, 85-89 (2d Cir.1996) (finding that the plaintiff had been constructively discharged where, inter alia, she was told that "she would be fired immediately if, over the course of two years, she did not maintain satisfactory performance levels"); Lopez v. S.B. Thomas, Inc., 831 F.2d 1184, 1188 (2d Cir.1987) (finding that supervisor's statement to plaintiff that he "would be fired at the end of the 90-day probationary period no matter what" was sufficient evidence to deny employer's motion for summary judgment on constructive discharge claim); Silverman v. City of New York, 216 F.Supp.2d 108, 115 (E.D.N.Y.2002) ("[A] number of courts in this circuit have held that threats of termination may be sufficient to establish constructive discharge."), aff'd, 64 Fed. Appx. 799 (2d Cir.2003). However, termination must be highly likely. See Lopez, 831 F.2d at 1188; Adams v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 284 Fed.Appx. 296, 302 (6th Cir.2008) (finding that plaintiffs who chose to resign rather than face the possibility of layoffs were not constructively discharged because they "were not certain to lose their jobs"). An employees's subjective belief that termination is inevitable is not enough; rather, a constructive discharge claim will lie only where the "employer acts in a manner so as to have communicated to a reasonable employee that she will be terminated." Kodish v. Oakbrook Terrace Fire Prot. Dist., 604 F.3d 490, 502 (7th Cir.2010) (quotation marks omitted).
Here, Plaintiff has offered sufficient evidence that her harassment and the prospect of inevitable demotion and termination amounted to a constructive discharge. As discussed infra, Plaintiff has offered evidence of her frequent exposure to a variety of misogynist comments, conduct, drawings, and writings. Moreover, she has offered evidence that her supervisors were repeatedly made aware of this conduct, took no remedial action, and even expressed their approval of the conduct. A reasonable factfinder could determine from Defendants' knowledge and response that, rather than being merely negligent, they intentionally permitted and encouraged the hostile work environment to which Plaintiff was subjected.
Plaintiff's reasonable perception that she would inevitably be terminated were she to sign the LCA and return to work also gives rise to a constructive discharge claim. As discussed infra, Plaintiff has offered sufficient evidence from which a factfinder could conclude that, in the two months prior to Defendants' LCA proffer, Plaintiff was given multiple discriminatory
The combination of the permitted and encouraged hostile work environment, pay-and prestige-reducing demotion, and near-inevitable termination are enough for a reasonable factfinder to conclude that Plaintiff was constructively discharged. Cf. id. at 90. ("Certain factors, standing alone are legally insufficient to support constructive discharge. But the effect of a number of adverse conditions in the workplace is cumulative." (citations omitted)).
Defendants assert that Plaintiff has not demonstrated circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. See Mem. at 11-12. "[T]he question of whether the plaintiff has met h[er] prima facie burden of demonstrating an inference of discrimination is often indistinguishable from the question of whether the
Defendants have proffered the same non-discriminatory reason for each of the adverse actions at issue: Plaintiff was disciplined for performance and conduct issues. See Mem. at 11-12, 15-16. The burden therefore shifts to Plaintiff to demonstrate that these reasons were pretext for discrimination.
Plaintiff received a February 17, 2010, warning for verbally abusing a supervisor, Robert Wallace ("Wallace"), and making him feel uncomfortable. Dkt. No. 35-3 at 23 ("February Insubordination Warning"). Plaintiff has offered evidence that a male employee repeatedly cursed, screamed, and threatened to kill this same supervisor and received no discipline. See Geddes Decl. ¶¶ 19-21; Bader Decl. ¶ 39. The failure to discipline this male employee for far more grievous verbal abuse is strong evidence of pretext. See Ruiz, 609 F.3d at 493 ("A showing of disparate treatment — that is, a showing that an employer treated plaintiff less favorably than a similarly situated employee outside his protected group — is a recognized method of raising an inference of discrimination." (quotation marks omitted)). Plaintiff also offers evidence that Wallace had previously disciplined her twice for the same conduct he regularly permitted male employees to engage in: reading and performing other non-work tasks in the Immersion Sonic Room. See Bader Decl. ¶¶ 20-22; Geddes Decl. ¶¶ 15-20. This too is strong evidence of pretext. See Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 113, 122 S.Ct. 2061, 153 L.Ed.2d 106 (2002) (noting that even non-actionable prior acts of discrimination may serve as background evidence of discrimination); Jute v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp., 420 F.3d 166, 176-77 (2d Cir.2005) ("[R]elevant background evidence, such as ... earlier decisions typifying the [discrimination] involved, may be considered to assess liability."). Finally, Plaintiff denies that she made the insubordinate comments for which she was disciplined. See Bader Decl. ¶ 39; Bader Dep. at 115-118. Because some of the same managers who allegedly heard Plaintiff's comments also made the decision to discipline her, a reasonable factfinder who credited Plaintiff's account over Defendants' would be all but
Plaintiff received another February 17, 2010, warning for permitting an internal escape — an inspector's improper approval of an inadequate product that is discovered and remedied at SMC's facility before it is sent to the customer. See Dkt. No. 35-3 at 25 ("February Escape Warning"); Mem. at 4 n. 1. Plaintiff alleges that the product was actually adequate but she mistakenly marked it as inadequate. Bader Decl. ¶ 45. The warning notice appears to support her contention. See Feb. 17 Escape Warning. Plaintiff alleges that such typo-only internal escapes are common and were not met with warnings or discipline of any kind. Bader Decl. ¶¶ 41-42. While Plaintiff has not specifically identified any male employees who committed such typo-only internal escapes and were not punished, a factfinder could reasonably infer that some of the hundreds of unpunished internal escapes identified by Plaintiff's coworker Michael Geddes were typo-only. See Geddes Decl. ¶¶ 32-33. While Defendants have offered evidence that they disciplined other employees for internal escapes, they have not shown that any of these were "typo," rather than "actual," internal escapes. See Mem. at 14-15; Dkt. No. 22-9, Exs. O-V. Defendants' discipline of Plaintiff in contravention of their standard practice is evidence of pretext. See Gallo, 22 F.3d at 1226-27 (finding sufficient evidence of pretext where employer's treatment of plaintiff violated its own practice); Bonura v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 795 F.2d 276, 277 (2d Cir.1986) (same). Plaintiff has created a genuine dispute of material fact on whether the performance explanation for this warning was pretextual.
Plaintiff received a March 1, 2010, warning for failing to complete a required "IRR" form that was to accompany shipped product. Dkt. No. 35-3 at 27 ("March IRR Warning"). Plaintiff alleges that Wallace explicitly told her to ship the product without the IRR form. Bader Decl. ¶ 44. Wallace and other managers then disciplined Plaintiff for her failure to include the form. See March IRR Warning; Bader Decl. ¶ 44. Again, a reasonable factfinder who credited Plaintiff's version over Defendants' would be all but compelled to find that this discipline was pretextual: supervisors generally do not discipline employees for following orders. Moreover, Plaintiff asserts that Wallace, a male, received no discipline for instructing her to ship the product without the IRR form. See Bader Decl. ¶ 44. Defendants' failure to discipline Wallace for his related yet more grievous misconduct is evidence of pretext. See Ruiz, 609 F.3d at 493. Thus, Plaintiff has created a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether this warning was pretextual.
Plaintiff received another March 1, 2010, warning for an actual, rather than a merely typographical, internal escape. See First Suspension Notice. Plaintiff acknowledges that she did permit an internal escape and that this was a serious error. Bader Decl. ¶ 45. Moreover, Defendants offer evidence of their increased focus on internal escapes and their concomitant meting out of discipline. See Mem. at 14-15; Dabs Decl. ¶¶ 13-17. Thus, Plaintiff's conduct was an objectively reasonable basis for imposing discipline.
Nevertheless, Plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence that this warning was pretextual because it resulted from a discriminatory effort to scrutinize her work and thereby find a pretextual reason to discipline her. The male inspector who discovered the internal escape, Sefcheck, relayed his discovery of Plaintiff's mistake to other employees by announcing, with visible delight, "I got her. I stuck it in her ass. I got her for the boys. She'll be gone." Geddes Decl. ¶ 35. A reasonable factfinder could determine from Sefcheck's sexual and gender-animus-evincing language that he had discriminatorily scrutinized Plaintiff's work so as to cause her termination. Cf. Staub v. Proctor Hosp., ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 1186, 1194, 179 L.Ed.2d 144 (2011) (finding supervisor's statement that she was "trying to `get rid of'" plaintiff evidence of animus).
Plaintiff received a fifth 2010 written warning for her failure to follow a supervisor's instructions regarding the order of tasks she was to perform. See Dkt. No. 35-3 at 32 ("April 13 Warning"). Plaintiff argues that her supervisor, Andy Winsemius ("Winsemius"), gave her confusing directions and management failed to credit her version of the directions she received over her "young and inexperienced male" supervisor's version. Bader Decl. ¶¶ 52-53. Management's failure to credit Plaintiff's account over Winsemius's is not evidence of pretext, especially because Plaintiff has not alleged that male employees' version of events were usually credited over their supervisors'. Plaintiff has therefore failed to create a triable issue of fact on whether this warning was pretextual.
On April 30, 2010, Plaintiff was given a warning for not taking a sufficient number of measurements of an ingot and her resulting failure to report that the ingot's minimum diameter at its tapered bottom was undersized. See Demotion Notice. Plaintiff asserts that it is impossible to measure the tapered part of ingots because SMC does not have a tool with which to do so. See Bader Dep. at 70, 127. Plaintiff specifically states that a "pi tape," the tool she apparently assumes Winsemius used to measure the taper, cannot be used for that purpose, and that pi tape manufacturers have explicitly stated this in their manuals. Bader Decl. ¶ 64. She further alleges that the diameter of tapers was never measured in her thirty-two years at SMC. Id. at 129. Defendants offer no evidence to the contrary. Defendants' substantial departure from SMC practice in taking and relying upon the measurements underlying this warning is strong evidence of pretext. See Gallo, 22 F.3d at 1226-27; Bonura, 795 F.2d at 277. Plaintiff has therefore offered sufficient evidence that this warning was pretextual.
Plaintiff's suspensions, demotion, and LCA Proffer were premised on some or all of the six warnings she received in February, March, and April 2013. See First Suspension Notice (noting that Plaintiff was to receive a three-day suspension for her third written warning); Second Suspension Notice; Mem. at 10 (noting that Plaintiff's ten-day suspension was issued because of her prior written warnings); Demotion Notice (noting that Plaintiff's demotion was based on Article 9, Section 5 of the CBA, which provides that disciplinary demotions will only be used in the cases of "repeated poor performance"); Proposed LCA (noting that Plaintiff's "latest infraction" warranted termination). Because there is sufficient evidence upon which to find that five of these six warnings were pretextual, there is sufficient evidence to find that the suspensions and demotion were pretextual. With respect to Plaintiff's constructive discharge claim, there is therefore sufficient evidence to find that, in the months before she ceased working, she was repeatedly warned, demoted, and suspended for pretextual reasons.
Defendants argue that, even if their proffered explanations for Plaintiff's discipline were pretextual, Plaintiff has not shown that they were pretext for discrimination. See Mem. at 15-17. But a finding of pretext may, on its own, be enough to support a finding of discrimination.
Plaintiff's evidence of age-based animus is nonexistent. While she makes general allegations that "younger" male employees were treated more favorably than she was, she does not provide the ages (or age ranges) of any specific comparator. See generally Bader Decl. Nor has she pointed
To make out a retaliation claim under Title VII, ADEA, and the HRL, a plaintiff must show that: (1) she was engaged in protected activity; (2) the employer was aware of that activity; (3) the employee suffered a materially adverse action; and (4) there was a causal connection between the protected activity and that adverse action. See Rivera v. Rochester Genesee Reg'l Transp. Auth., 702 F.3d 685, 698 (2d Cir.2012) (quotation marks and alterations omitted).
An employee engages in protected activity when she complains about or otherwise opposes conduct that she reasonably believes constitutes forbidden discrimination or retaliation. See Sumner v. U.S. Postal Serv., 899 F.2d 203, 209 (2d Cir.1990). "Complaints about conduct clearly prohibited by the statute need not mention discrimination or use particular language." Int'l Healthcare Exch., Inc. v. Global Healthcare Exch., LLC, 470 F.Supp.2d 345, 357 (S.D.N.Y.2007); see also Ramos v. City of New York, No. 96 CIV. 3787, 1997 WL 410493, at * 3 (S.D.N.Y. July 22, 1997) (holding that no "magic words" must be used). "However, ambiguous complaints that do not make the employer aware of alleged discriminatory misconduct do not constitute protected activity." Int'l Healthcare, 470 F.Supp.2d at 357; see also Ramos, 1997 WL 410493, at *3 ("[T]he complaint must put the employer on notice that ... discrimination is occurring." (citation omitted)).
Additionally, a plaintiff bringing an ADEA or Title VII claim must have exhausted her administrative remedies by setting forth her claims in a complaint with the EEOC or a qualifying state anti-discrimination agency.
A similar requirement applies to claims or theories that a plaintiff attempts to raise on summary judgment that were not raised in her court complaint. Certainly, a complaint need not include every fact upon which recovery is subsequently premised. See Boakye-Yiadom v. Laria, No. 09 CV 622, 2012 WL 5866186, at *11 n. 14 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 19, 2012). However, a party "may not raise new claims or theories of liability for the first time in opposition to summary judgment." Nagel v. County of Orange, No. 09-CV-9960, 2013 WL 1285465, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2013). This rule serves to ensure that defendants are not prejudiced by conducting discovery on one theory of liability and then having to defend against a different theory. See Beckman v. U.S. Postal Serv., 79 F.Supp.2d 394, 407 (S.D.N.Y.2000) (granting summary judgment and noting that, "at the very least, [a] plaintiff must set forth facts that will allow each party to tailor its discovery to prepare an appropriate defense" (citation omitted)). Thus, this rule applies with significantly less force where a plaintiff provides some notice of her theory of liability before discovery has ended.
Plaintiff contends that she engaged in protected activity when she: (1) complained in 2007, both directly and through the Union, to management regarding harassment by supervisor Brian Allen ("Allen"); (2) repeatedly complained to management about a gender-based hostile work environment generally; (3) filed EthicsPoint reports on July 9, 2009, and April 22, 2010; and (4) was named as a witness and subsequently deposed in the DiFillippo Action. Resp. at 5. Defendants offer some combination of three arguments with respect to each: (1) Plaintiff's complaints or other conduct do not constitute protected activity; (2) Plaintiff did not exhaust her administrative remedies; and (3) Plaintiff failed to allege this protected activity in her Complaint.
Defendants argue that Plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies with respect to the harassment complaints she made regarding Allen in 2007. See Mem. at 18-19. But Plaintiff's Division Complaint states that, in approximately 2007, she began to be subjected to a hostile work environment and retaliated against, and that such harassment included members of management "demean[ing]" and "yelling" at her. Div. Compl. ¶ 1. She also alleges that, on other occasions, she complained both directly to SMC and through her Union about her treatment by management. See id. ¶¶ 2, 6, 7, 9. Plaintiff now seeks to base her retaliation claim on, inter alia, complaints she made to SMC, both through her union and directly to management, about Allen making "crude jokes" about her, her body, and her relationship with her husband, and his "scream[ing] and yell[ing] at her." Bader Decl. ¶¶ 7-10 (emphasis added). An administrative investigation prompted by the Division Complaint would reasonably be expected to encompass retaliation for Plaintiff's complaints about Allen, because: (1) the complained-of conduct took place at the same time, was carried out in largely the same fashion, and was committed by the same type of actor (management) as the conduct that was the subject of the Division Complaint-described complaints; and (2) Plaintiff's complaints regarding Allen's conduct were made in the same general manner as Division Complaint-described complaints.
Plaintiff also alleges that she made numerous complaints to supervisors regarding the genderbased hostile environment to which she was subjected by coworkers, including misogynist drawings and comments regarding Plaintiff and other female employees. See Bader Dep. at 158-170. As discussed infra, Plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence that the complained-of conduct constituted a hostile work environment. Thus, her complaints regarding that conduct certainly constitute protected activity.
Plaintiff exhausted her administrative remedies with respect to the coworker-caused hostile work environment. The Division Complaint indicates that Plaintiff was retaliated against for complaining about "hostile work environment" and "harassment" by "supervisors and individuals," thereby implicitly referencing coworker harassment. Div. Compl. ¶ 7 (emphasis added). The Division Complaint also points to specific complaints she made to both management and SMC's human resources department regarding that harassment. Id. ¶¶ 2, 7. Moreover, it details the adverse actions she now claims were retaliation for her harassment complaints. See id. ¶¶ 3, 5, 6, 7. Defendants correctly note that the Division Complaint's allegations regarding Plaintiff's coworker-harassment complaints are conclusory, and that the only specific complaints she details covered management "demeaning" Plaintiff by yelling at her and making "false claims" against her. Id. ¶ 1. Nevertheless, given the Division Complaint's general allusions to coworker-harassment complaints, its description of some specific complaints to management, and its detailed coverage of many of the retaliatory adverse actions at issue, an EEOC investigation arising from the Division Complaint might reasonably be expected to cover retaliation for Plaintiff's complaints to management regarding coworker harassment. See Jute, 420 F.3d at 178 ("A complaint of retaliation could reasonably be expected to inquire into other instances of alleged retaliation by the same actor." (emphasis added and citation, quotation marks, and brackets omitted)).
The Complaint also sufficiently alludes to this protected activity. It describes in detail the harassing conduct about which Plaintiff complained to management. See Compl. ¶ 23. It also discusses Plaintiff's frequent complaints to management and human resources regarding "hostile work environment" and other discrimination, as well as retaliation for those complaints. Id. ¶¶ 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 19. Thus, the Complaint plausibly suggests that Plaintiff had complained about the hostile work environment and that she was, or might be, premising her retaliation claim on Defendants'
Defendants argue that Plaintiff cannot premise her retaliation claim on her July 9, 2009, telephone EthicsPoint report because: (1) the report does not mention discrimination and therefore does not constitute protected activity; and (2) Plaintiff failed to mention the report in her Division Complaint or Complaint. See Reply at 15; Dkt. No. 22-5 at 55-58
Plaintiff made her 2009 EthicsPoint report by phone. See 2009 EthicsPoint Summary at 55 (noting that Plaintiff made her report to the "Call Center"); id. at 56 (describing Plaintiff's call). The person who received Plaintiff's call then prepared a written summary of that call. See 2009 EthicsPoint Summary. That summary does not include explicit allegations of discrimination. See id. Defendants treat this summary as dispositive. See Reply at 15. But Plaintiff now alleges that she complained about "unfair, discriminating and harassing treatment ... and that there was a double standard for [Plaintiff] and other male employees in the Inspection Department." Bader Decl. ¶ 23. This double-standard allegation constitutes a discrimination complaint. See Bandhan v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 234 F.Supp.2d 313, 320 (S.D.N.Y.2002) (finding that Plaintiff's letter complaining of "double standards" constituted protected activity). Plaintiff also alleges that, in her follow-up meeting with Dohar regarding the report, she complained about Marecek's discriminatory monitoring of her bathroom visits. Bader Dep. at 109. Whether Plaintiff or the 2009 EthicsPoint Summary accurately describes Plaintiff's complaint is a disputed issue of fact unsuitable for resolution on summary judgment.
Moreover, even the summary of the 2009 EthicsPoint report indicates that Plaintiff complained about discrimination. It notes that Plaintiff complained that four male supervisors had "intentionally been making her work environment unbearable" and that Plaintiff had been "threatened various times" with suspension and termination. 2009 EthicsPoint Summary at 56. Plaintiff also complained that she had been
Defendants argue that the Division Complaint's failure to mention the 2009 EthicsPoint report or any "specific factual allegations of her opposition to unlawful age or gender discrimination" renders her administrative remedies unexhausted. Mem. at 19. But the Division Complaint states that Plaintiff had been retaliatorily suspended and offered an LCA in response to her 2010 EthicsPoint report. Div. Compl. ¶¶ 7, 9.
For the same reasons, Plaintiff's failure to mention the 2009 EthicsPoint report in the Complaint does not prevent her from premising her retaliation claim on that protected activity. The Complaint explicitly discussed the 2010 EthicsPoint report and the ensuing retaliatory discipline and LCA proffer. See Compl ¶ 17. The Complaint also indicated that Plaintiff "continuously" complained about unfair discipline and scrutiny, and was retaliated against by being further disciplined. Id. ¶¶ 10, 11. The Complaint's discussion of the 2010 EthicsPoint report and other discrimination complaints was sufficient to put Defendants on notice that Plaintiff might be premising her retaliation claim on the 2009 EthicsPoint report. Plaintiff also gave Defendants additional notice before discovery ended. See Bader Dep. at 109. Thus, Plaintiff may premise her retaliation claim on this protected activity.
Defendants argue that Plaintiff's 2010 EthicsPoint report also cannot constitute protected activity because it did not cover discrimination. Reply at 15. But in this email report, Plaintiff states that she is complaining about a "hostile workplace" and "ongoing harassment," terms that are often used in conjunction with gender-based discrimination. Dkt. No. 22-5 at 55-58 ("2010 EthicsPoint Email"). And all three supervisors about whom she explicitly complained, as well as a foreman who putatively "misrepresented" a conversation with Plaintiff, were male. Id. This raises the specter of gender discrimination. Moreover, Plaintiff states in her 2010 EthicsPoint report that the complained-of activity had been "ongoing for two years" — thereby implicitly referencing her 2009 EthicsPoint report that, as discussed supra, may have explicitly referenced discrimination. Thus, the 2010 EthicsPoint report's allegations that the April 13, 2013, warning and LCA offer were unfair and the result of "targeting" by her male supervisors can be read to allege gender-based discrimination. Defendants correctly note that the 2010 EthicsPoint report
Plaintiff also seeks to premise her retaliation claim on the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 disclosure of Plaintiff as a possible witness in the DiFillippo Action, as well as Plaintiff's subsequent deposition. See Resp. at 11-12. Plaintiff's Motion to amend the Complaint to include allegations of retaliation for this protected activity has been denied. As discussed supra, this does not necessarily preclude Plaintiff from bringing a retaliation claim based on her DiFillippo Action participation: a complaint need include every fact upon which recovery is subsequently premised. However, Plaintiff's failure to mention any remotely similar protected activity in the Complaint or otherwise give Defendants notice that she might be premising her retaliation claim on her DiFillippo Action participation does so preclude her. All of the protected activity Plaintiff described in her Complaint were complaints she made to the Union and SMC regarding treatment she received. See, e.g., Compl. ¶ 10 (noting that Plaintiff was retaliated against for complaining about the "disparate treatment against her" (emphasis added)); id. ¶ 34 (asserting that Plaintiff had been retaliated against for "complaining about and opposing discrimination on account of her" (emphasis added)). Moreover, although Plaintiff did mention the DiFillippo action at her deposition, she did not hint that she was retaliated against for her participation. See generally Bader Dep. As neither Plaintiff's Complaint nor anything else gave Defendants, prior to the end of discovery, reasonable notice that Plaintiff was or might be premising her retaliation claims on her participation in the DiFillippo Action, she cannot do so now.
Retaliation is actionable only where it amounts to a materially adverse action — an action that "well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination." Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 68, 126 S.Ct. 2405, 165 L.Ed.2d 345 (2006) (quotation marks omitted). This is a similar, albeit "lesser standard" than the adverse-employment-action standard applicable to discrimination claims and discussed supra. Evarts v. S. New Eng. Tel. Co., No. CV 112, 2006 WL
A plaintiff may demonstrate causation by, inter alia, "showing that the protected activity was followed closely by discriminatory treatment, or through other circumstantial evidence." Hicks v. Baines, 593 F.3d 159, 170 (2d Cir.2010) (quotation marks omitted). In general, a temporal gap of less than two months is sufficient to give rise to an inference of causation. See Mazurkiewicz v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosps. Corp., No. 09 Civ. 5962, 2010 WL 3958852, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2010). However, even much longer gaps may be bridged by an intervening pattern of retaliatory treatment. See Jute, 420 F.3d at 175 (noting that earlier, non-actionable acts of retaliation occurring soon after protected activity could show a "chain of events" connecting the protected activity and subsequent adverse actions); Chan v. NYU Downtown Hosp., No. 03 Civ. 3003, 2004 WL 213024, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2004) ("[E]vidence of an intervening pattern of antagonism between the complaint and her employer could support an inference that an alleged retaliatory act that was taken against the complainant was causally related to her complaint of discrimination."). Moreover, "[t]emporal proximity is just one method of demonstrating causation, and therefore the absence of temporal proximity does not demonstrate conclusively a lack of causation." Chan, 2004 WL 213024, at *3. Evidence of pretext may alone suffice to defeat summary judgment on causation. See Xu-Shen Zhou v. State Univ. of N.Y. Inst. of Tech., 499 Fed.Appx. 105, 108-09 (2d Cir.2012) (reversing grant of summary judgment to employer based on evidence of the falsity of defendants' termination explanations); Kessler v. Westchester Cnty. Dept. of Social Servs., 461 F.3d 199 (2d Cir.2006) (same).
As discussed supra, Plaintiff did not suffer an adverse action until February 2010, more than three years after her 2007 complaints regarding Allen, approximately a year after her 2009 EthicsPoint report, and some time after many of her coworker-harassment complaints. However, she points to an intervening pattern of retaliatory conduct. She alleges that she received a written warning for "insubordination" and other discipline for making an allegedly false sexual harassment report soon after she complained about Allen. See Bader Decl. ¶¶ 12-14. This was then followed by a long period of intense criticism and observation by her supervisors, including numerous instances of Marecek spying on Plaintiff and criticizing her for taking too long in the bathroom. Id. ¶ 14. Plaintiff was then repeatedly disciplined for conduct that the disciplining supervisor regularly permitted other employees to engage in. Bader Decl. ¶¶ 20-22; Dkt. No. 22-9, Ex. F.
Plaintiff also alleges that she was disciplined a mere five days
Plaintiff offers substantial non-temporal evidence of causation. Sefcheck's "I got her for the boys" comment plausibly suggests retaliatory animus and causation.
Plaintiff alleges that she was subjected to a hostile work environment due to her age and gender. See Compl. ¶¶ 27-29, 36-38, 45-47, 54-56. A hostile work environment constitutes an adverse employment action. See Alfano v. Costello, 294 F.3d 365, 373 (2d Cir.2002). "[T]he misconduct shown must be `severe or pervasive enough to create an objectively hostile or abusive work environment,' and the victim must also subjectively perceive that environment to be abusive." Id. at 374 (quoting Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21, 114 S.Ct. 367, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993)). A hostile work environment is actionable "only when it occurs because of an employee's sex, or other protected characteristic." Brown v. Henderson, 257 F.3d 246, 252 (2d Cir.2001). Moreover, a plaintiff must demonstrate a specific basis for imputing the hostile work environment to her employer. Perry v. Ethan Allen, Inc., 115 F.3d 143, 149 (2d Cir.1997).
In order to demonstrate that the conduct to which she was exposed was sufficiently severe or pervasive, a plaintiff may show that "a single incident was extraordinarily severe, or that a series of incidents were sufficiently continuous and concerted to have altered the conditions of her working environment." Cruz v. Coach Stores, Inc., 202 F.3d 560, 570 (2d Cir. 2000) (citation and quotation marks omitted), superseded by statute on other grounds, Local Civil Rights Restoration Act of 2005, N.Y.C. Local Law No. 85. "[C]ourts should examine the totality of the circumstances, including: the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with the victim's job performance." Rivera,
In this case, Plaintiff details a variety of appalling misogynist conduct, including "offensive and sexually suggestive" pictures throughout the plant, including pictures of penises;
Defendants argue that the because some of the conduct and speech at issue was not directed at Plaintiff, that conduct and speech is "far less persuasive in establishing a hostile work environment claim." Reply at 23. This is incorrect. Highly offensive, inherently misogynist terms and images may reasonably be interpreted to demean all women, and therefore may dramatically affect an employee's working conditions even when not "directed" at her. See Petrosino, 385 F.3d at 222 (finding sufficient evidence of a hostile work environment even though many of the sexual insults and writings at issue were not directed at the plaintiff); Williams, 255 Fed.Appx. at 549 ("Because a hostile work environment claim focuses on the nature of the workplace environment as a whole, evidence of racial and sexual harassment and hostility beyond what is directed specifically at the plaintiff is relevant to our analysis." (quotation marks omitted)); Ocheltree v. Scollon Prods., Inc., 335 F.3d 325, 332 (4th Cir. 2003) (finding that "sex-laden and sexist talk and conduct," even though not directed at plaintiff, were sufficiently severe or pervasive because they were "particularly offensive to women"); Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc., 760 F.Supp. 1486, 1522-23 (M.D.Fla.1991) (holding that sexually provocative pictures of nude and partially nude women had "a disproportionately demeaning impact" on female employees and, as such, "convey[ed] the message that [women] do not belong"). As the Second Circuit has noted, a hypothetical situation in which an "`African-American plaintiff... [is exposed] to the daily use of the meanest racial slur against African-Americans'" well illustrates that offensive and bigoted language need not be "directed" at an employee to create a hostile work environment. Petrosino, 385 F.3d at 222-23 (quotation marks omitted). Moreover, as discussed supra, Plaintiff has pointed to numerous offensive comments and extensive conduct that were explicitly directed at her.
Defendants also incorrectly argue that Plaintiff's failure to specify the exact time, place, and actor for each and every incident is fatal to her claim. Reply at 21-23. Plaintiff was not required to work with a hammer
In addition to the explicitly gender-based coworker conduct discussed supra, Plaintiff points to mistreatment by her supervisors: Dabbs repeatedly yelled at her and told her to "shut up," and Marecek
Defendants correctly note that the factual basis of Plaintiff's Title VII hostile work environment claim is limited by the allegations in her Division Complaint. See Mem. at 22-23. The Division Complaint's specific allegations of harassment involve only members of management "demeaning" Plaintiff by yelling at her and making "false claims" against her. Div Compl ¶ 1. Plaintiff now seeks to bring a hostile work environment claim based primarily on coworker's misogynist language and drawings. These discriminatory acts are of a very different nature and were committed by different actors than the conduct raised in the Division Complaint. Plaintiff's Title VII hostile work environment claim is not exhausted with respect to this conduct, which therefore cannot serve as the basis for that claim. See Concey v. N.Y.S. Unified Court Sys., No. 08 Civ. 8858, 2011 WL 4549386, at *10-12 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (finding that, where plaintiff's administrative complaint focused on his treatment by his immediate supervisor, he had not exhausted his claims with respect to his discriminatory non-selection by other actors); Colquitt v. Xerox Corp., No. 05-CV-6405, 2010 WL 3943734, at *5 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2010) (finding that administrative complaint's allegation of hostile work environment were not reasonably related to a claim for failure to promote); cf. Jute, 420 F.3d at 178.
Defendants argue that, even if the conduct at issue was severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment under the HRL, SMC is not liable. To impose liability on an employer for coworker harassment, a plaintiff must demonstrate negligence, i.e., that her employer either: (1) failed to provide a reasonable avenue for complaint; or (2) knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, about the harassment yet failed to take appropriate remedial action. Duch v. Jakubek, 588 F.3d 757, 762 (2d Cir.2009). A supervisor's notice of coworker harassment is imputed to the employer. See id. at 764-65. "If the employer is found to have been on notice of the sexual harassment, summary judgment is inappropriate where there is evidence that presents an issue of fact as to whether the employer's action was effectively remedial and prompt." Dawson v. County of Westchester, 351 F.Supp.2d 176, 192 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (quotation marks omitted).
Similarly, employers, who are otherwise liable for a hostile work environment created by a supervisor's conduct, have an affirmative defense, known as the Faragher/Ellerth
Here, Plaintiff has offered sufficient evidence of SMC's notice and ineffective remedial action. According to Plaintiff, the Individual Defendants and other supervisors were acutely aware of the treatment she was receiving, either because they witnessed it first hand, see Bader Decl. ¶ 4 (noting that pictures of penises were drawn on the time clock and other "regularly frequented areas" and that it would therefore "not be possible for management to be unaware"); id. ¶ 5 (noting that Plaintiff frequently observed Maracek and Wallace participating in conversations where the words "slut," "whore," and "cunt" were used, including in reference to a fellow female employee), or because they were explicitly told about the conduct by Plaintiff, see Bader Dep. at 158 (noting that Plaintiff complained to her supervisors, including Wallace and Maracek, about penis drawings and offensive photographs placed around the workplace);
Plaintiff has also offered sufficient evidence that Defendants did not take prompt or effective remedial action despite receiving notice. Defendants argue that their extant anti-harassment policy automatically renders their response adequate. Mem. at 26. This is not so. An employer's inadequate response to a complaint of harassment renders its remedial action ineffective whether or not it has such a policy. See Caridad v. Metro-N. Commuter R.R., 191 F.3d 283, 295 (2d Cir. 1999) (noting that such a policy is merely an "important consideration" and is not dispositive); Humphrey v. County of Nassau, No. 06-CV-3682, 2009 WL 875534, at *12 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2009) (denying summary judgment on Faragher/Ellerth defense despite anti-harassment policy where there were factual disputes as to
Plaintiff also brings a state-law contract claim alleging that SMC breached a variety of the CBA's provisions. Compl. ¶¶ 63-67. "Breach of contract claims founded directly on rights created by collective-bargaining agreements, or substantially dependent upon analysis of the terms of such agreements, are completely preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185(a)." Avedisian v. Quinnipiac Univ., 387 Fed. Appx. 59, 62 (2d Cir.2010) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Plaintiff's breach-of-contract claim is premised directly on CBA-created rights and is therefore preempted: Her claim "must either be treated as a § 301 claim, or [be] dismissed as pre-empted by federal labor-contract law." Vera v. Saks & Co., 335 F.3d 109, 114 (2d Cir.2003) (quotation marks omitted). Even if the Court were to convert Plaintiff's claim into a § 301 claim, Defendants would be entitled to summary judgment. A Plaintiff generally must exhaust a CBA's grievance and arbitration procedures in order to bring a § 301 claim. See DelCostello v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 163, 103 S.Ct. 2281, 76 L.Ed.2d 476 (1983); Cephas v. MVM, Inc., 520 F.3d 480, 485 (D.C.Cir. 2008). Here, Plaintiff has admittedly not done so. See Resp. at 24 (arguing that Plaintiff had not fully pursued her grievance and arbitration remedies because "[g]rievances are at an employee[']s discretion"); SMF Resp. ¶ 68 (admitting that the Union had not proceeded to arbitration on its grievances regarding Plaintiff's discipline).
However, there are three narrow exceptions to this exhaustion requirement where: (1) the employer has repudiated grievance mechanisms; (2) the union has breached its duty of fair representation ("DFR"); or (3) grievance and arbitration would be futile. Vera v. Saks, 208 Fed. Appx. 66, 68 (2d Cir.2006). Plaintiff cannot make out any of these exceptions. She argues that Defendants did not follow the grievance procedures, because no grievance hearing was scheduled regarding her March 1, 2010, and April 13, 2010, warnings. Resp. at 24; Bader Decl. ¶ 68. But Defendants assert, and Plaintiff admits, that the Union decided not to proceed to arbitration on Plaintiff's grievances because of her medical leave. See SMF ¶ 68; SMF Resp. ¶ 68; Farley Decl. ¶¶ 45-48. Plaintiff provides no evidence of SMC's non-compliance with grievance procedures, and thus has fallen far short of demonstrating grievance repudiation.
Plaintiff also has not alleged, and cannot show, that the Union breached its duty of fair representation. To the contrary, she points to consistent support and advocacy by the Union on her behalf. See, e.g., Bader Decl. ¶¶ 10-11, 17, 55. Even if Plaintiff had alleged a DFR violation, her claim would be untimely. Section 301 claims premised on a union's DFR violation must be brought within six months of when the plaintiff "knew or reasonably should have known that a breach [of the duty of fair representation] has occurred." Ramey v. District 141, Int'l Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 378 F.3d 269, 278 (2d Cir.2004). Here, Plaintiff did not file her Complaint until more than a year after she had ceased working for SMC and the Union decided not to pursue grievances regarding Plaintiff's discipline.
Finally, Plaintiff has offered no evidence that pursing her grievance and arbitration
Accordingly, it is hereby:
Dkt. No. 22-5 ("Butler Declaration"), Ex. D at 11. Plaintiff's admission that union participation or outspokenness led to mistreatment by SMC management does not preclude the possibility of gender animus — an employee need not demonstrate a lack of any non-gender-based animus to prevail on a gender discrimination claim.
