GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief District Judge.
Currently before the Court, in this employment discrimination action filed by Isaac Montanez ("Plaintiff") against the Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc. ("Defendant"), is Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c), or in the alternative, motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). (Dkt. No. 29.) For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion is granted.
Generally, liberally construed, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint alleges as follows. Plaintiff is Hispanic and is of Puerto Rican descent. (Dkt. No. 7, at 3 [Pl.'s Am. Compl.].) On June 30, 2011, Plaintiff was hired to work as a dishwasher in one of Defendant's restaurant establishments. (Id.) During his employment, Plaintiff was harassed by various supervisors. (Id.) Specifically, beginning in August 2011, Plaintiff was (1) forced to work the "machine or loader out of 4-5 different areas," (2) followed by managers and subjected to comments about how he was performing his tasks, and (3) forced to wait to take his breaks until after the restaurant closed while other employees were allowed to take their breaks earlier. (Id.)
In June 2012, Plaintiff was promoted to the position of prep cook without a raise. (Id.) Beginning in August 2012, his managers forced him to do extra work as a prep cook while also being required to do the "cleaner's job." (Id. at 3, 5.) In October 2012, Plaintiff was demoted back to a position in the dish room and was given double shifts, requiring him to work both mornings and nights. (Id. at 5.) In December 2012, three managers brought Plaintiff into a room where they made racial comments about "Puerto Ricans and blacks." (Id.) During the same month, Plaintiff requested time off from work because one of his family members had died; however, that request was denied. (Id.) In January 2013, Plaintiff continued to be assigned multiple job duties by his managers ranging from his duties as a dishwasher to prep cook and doing the cleaner's job. (Id.) When assigning these tasks, Plaintiff's managers told him he could quit his job if he wanted to do so. (Id.)
In March 2013, Plaintiff's managers continued to harass him by yelling at him, accusing him of smoking drugs, and asking him whether he was "ready to die or to take a cap for them." (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that he began noticing cars following him home and he became fearful that they contained his managers. (Id. at 4.) On April 20, 2013, Plaintiff dual-filed a discrimination complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights ("DHR") and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") based upon his treatment while employed by Defendant. (Id.) Thereafter, Plaintiff's hours at work were reduced and his supervisors continued to give him a difficult time about his work ethic while following him around the restaurant. (Id.) On April 24, 2013, Plaintiff was admitted to a hospital where he was treated for his mental health and diagnosed with depression, anxiety, and high blood pressure. (Id.) In July 2013, Plaintiff returned to work but had difficulty focusing and continued to be paranoid and scared of his managers. (Id.) In October 2013, Plaintiff left his shift because he was scared for his life and never returned to his position at the Cheesecake Factory. (Id.)
Based upon these allegations, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint asserts claims for employment discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Id. at 2.)
Plaintiff filed his original Complaint in this action on October 11, 2013. (Dkt. No. 1 [Pl.'s Compl].) At some point in time, the DHR facilitated settlement discussions between the parties related to Plaintiff's complaints that he had filed with the DHR and EEOC. (Dkt. No. 16, Attach. 1 [Ex. A to Def.'s Answer].) As a result of those discussions, Plaintiff signed a Stipulation of Settlement on May 1, 2014, pursuant to which he received a settlement payment in the amount of two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500.00) in exchange for the release of his employment discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII. (Id.) Specifically, the Stipulation of Settlement states, in pertinent part, as follows:
Id., ¶ 5.)
Approximately seven weeks after signing the Stipulation of Settlement, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint in this action. (Dkt. No. 7 [Pl.'s Am. Compl.].)
In its memorandum of law, Defendant argues that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint should be dismissed because Plaintiff executed the Stipulation of Settlement knowingly and voluntarily and, therefore, waived his claims. In support of its motion, Defendant cites language from the Stipulation of Settlement in which Plaintiff agreed that he was "entering into this stipulation willingly, without any coercion of duress." (Dkt. No. 29, Attach. 1, at 5 [Def.'s Mem. of Law].) In addition, Defendant cites Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 438 (2d Cir. 1998), where the Second Circuit applied a "totality of the circumstances" inquiry to ascertain whether a release was "knowing and voluntary." (Id. at 6.) The Circuit enumerated a number of factors that are relevant to this inquiry:
Livingston, 141 F.3d at 438. Courts have also considered a seventh factor of "whether the employer encouraged the employee to consult an attorney and whether the employee had a fair opportunity to do so." Id. These factors "are not exhaustive and not every factor must be in defendant's favor for the release to be found knowing and voluntary; rather, all of the factors must be examined under the totality of the circumstances." Neal v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 10-CV-1157, 2012 WL 3249477, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2012).
With respect to the first factor, Defendant argues that courts require that a plaintiff have only a high school equivalency diploma. (Dkt. No. 29, Attach. 1, at 7 [Def.'s Mem. of Law] [citing Brewer v. GEM Indus. Inc., 14-CV-0778, 2015 WL 773800, at *5 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2015) (D'Agostino, J.)]). Defendant argues that Plaintiff was capable of understanding the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement, particularly because the DHR assisted the parties with the settlement. (Dkt. No. 29, Attach. 1, at 7 [Def.'s Mem. of Law].)
With respect to the second factor, Defendant argues that Plaintiff had more than sufficient time to review the Stipulation of Settlement before signing it. (Id.) Specifically, other parties to the agreement signed it on April 23, April 24, and April 29, 2014, and Plaintiff waited eight days before signing the Stipulation of Settlement (on May 1, 2014). (Id.)
With respect to the third factor, Defendant argues that, although the Stipulation of Settlement was prepared by the DHR, Plaintiff played a role in deciding the terms of the agreement because he received significant monetary compensation in return for his signature. (Id. at 8.)
With respect to the fourth factor, Defendant argues that the Stipulation of Settlement was clear and concise. (Id.) Specifically, Defendant argues that the Stipulation of Settlement was just over two pages in length and clearly explained what monetary consideration was being offered and what Plaintiff would be forfeiting in exchange for that compensation. (Id.)
With respect to the fifth factor, Defendant argues that, although Plaintiff did not retain his own counsel and was not advised specifically in the Stipulation of Settlement to consult with an attorney, the DHR assisted the parties with the settlement. (Id. at 9.)
Finally, with respect to the sixth factor, Defendant argues that Plaintiff would not have otherwise received the $2,500.00 in compensation given to him in exchange for his waiver under the terms of his employment. (Id.)
Based upon the foregoing, Defendant argues that the totality of the circumstances demonstrates that Plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily signed the Stipulation of Settlement waiving his Title VII claims. (Id.) Because Plaintiff gladly accepted the settlement payment tendered to him by the Cheesecake Factory, Defendant argues that he should be held to the promises that he gave in exchange for receiving the benefits of the bargain. (Id.)
Liberally construed, Plaintiff's opposition memorandum of law argues that it was Plaintiff's understanding that, when he signed the Stipulation of Settlement, he was releasing only some of his claims but not all of them. (Dkt. No. 34, at 1 [Pl.'s Opp'n Mem. of Law].) Specifically, Plaintiff argues that, because he had filed two complaints with the DHR and the EEOC (one for discrimination and the second for retaliation), both of which had different case numbers, as well as a complaint in federal court, he apparently believed that the settlement would affect only some of his claims. (Id.) Accordingly, Plaintiff argues that, because he did not waive all of his claims, he should be allowed to proceed with the present action. (Id.)
In deciding a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c), district courts employ the same standard applicable to motions to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Hayden v. Paterson, 594 F.3d 150, 160 (2d Cir. 2010). Accordingly, the Court will review Defendant's motion under the standard applicable to a motion to dismiss.
It has long been understood that a dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), can be based on one or both of two grounds: (1) a challenge to the "sufficiency of the pleading" under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); or (2) a challenge to the legal cognizability of the claim. Jackson v. Onondaga Cty., 549 F.Supp.2d 204, 211, nn. 15-16 (N.D.N.Y. 2008) (McAvoy, J., adopting Report-Recommendation on de novo review).
Because such dismissals are often based on the first ground, a few words regarding that ground are appropriate. Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a pleading contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) [emphasis added]. In the Court's view, this tension between permitting a "short and plain statement" and requiring that the statement "show[]" an entitlement to relief is often at the heart of misunderstandings that occur regarding the pleading standard established by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
On the one hand, the Supreme Court has long characterized the "short and plain" pleading standard under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) as "simplified" and "liberal." Jackson, 549 F. Supp. 2d at 212, n.20 (citing Supreme Court case). On the other hand, the Supreme Court has held that, by requiring the above-described "showing," the pleading standard under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) requires that the pleading contain a statement that "give[s] the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Jackson, 549 F. Supp. 2d at 212, n.17 (citing Supreme Court cases) (emphasis added).
The Supreme Court has explained that such fair notice has the important purpose of "enabl[ing] the adverse party to answer and prepare for trial" and "facilitat[ing] a proper decision on the merits" by the court. Jackson, 549 F. Supp. 2d at 212, n.18 (citing Supreme Court cases); Rusyniak v. Gensini, 629 F.Supp.2d 203, 213 & n.32 (N.D.N.Y. 2009) (Suddaby, J.) (citing Second Circuit cases). For this reason, as one commentator has correctly observed, the "liberal" notice pleading standard "has its limits." 2 Moore's Federal Practice § 12.34[1][b] at 12-61 (3d ed. 2003). For example, numerous Supreme Court and Second Circuit decisions exist holding that a pleading has failed to meet the "liberal" notice pleading standard. Rusyniak, 629 F. Supp. 2d at 213, n.22 (citing Supreme Court and Second Circuit cases); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949-52 (2009).
Most notably, in Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, the Supreme Court reversed an appellate decision holding that a complaint had stated an actionable antitrust claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007). In doing so, the Court "retire[d]" the famous statement by the Court in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957), that "a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Twombly, 127 S. Ct. at 1968-69. Rather than turn on the conceivability of an actionable claim, the Court clarified, the "fair notice" standard turns on the plausibility of an actionable claim. Id. at 1965-74. The Court explained that, while this does not mean that a pleading need "set out in detail the facts upon which [the claim is based]," it does mean that the pleading must contain at least "some factual allegation[s]." Id. at 1965. More specifically, the "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level [to a plausible level]," assuming (of course) that all the allegations in the complaint are true. Id.
As for the nature of what is "plausible," the Supreme Court explained that "[a] claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). "[D]etermining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief . . . [is] a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense. . . . [W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged-but it has not show[n]-that the pleader is entitled to relief." Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1950 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]. However, while the plausibility standard "asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully," id., it "does not impose a probability requirement." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556.
Because of this requirement of factual allegations plausibly suggesting an entitlement to relief, "the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in the complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by merely conclusory statements, do not suffice." Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. Similarly, a pleading that only "tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement" will not suffice. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (internal citations and alterations omitted). Rule 8 "demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Id. (citations omitted).
This pleading standard applies even to pro se litigants. While the special leniency afforded to pro se civil rights litigants somewhat loosens the procedural rules governing the form of pleadings (as the Second Circuit has observed), it does not completely relieve a pro se plaintiff of the duty to satisfy the pleading standards set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, 10 and 12.
Finally, a few words are appropriate regarding what documents are considered when a dismissal for failure to state a claim is contemplated. Generally, when contemplating a dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) or Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c), the following matters outside the four corners of the complaint may be considered without triggering the standard governing a motion for summary judgment: (1) documents attached as an exhibit to the complaint or answer, (2) documents incorporated by reference in the complaint (and provided by the parties), (3) documents that, although not incorporated by reference, are "integral" to the complaint, or (4) any matter of which the court can take judicial notice for the factual background of the case.
After carefully considering the matter, the Court grants Defendant's motion for the reasons stated in Defendant's memorandum of law. (Dkt. No. 29, Attach. 1, at 5-10 [Def.'s Mem. of Law].) To those reasons, the Court adds the following two points.
First, the Court is unpersuaded by Plaintiff's argument that he was unaware of the rights he would be forfeiting by entering into the Stipulation of Settlement. Specifically, the language from the agreement is unambiguous and clear that, by signing the agreement, Plaintiff would be releasing Defendant "from all charges, complaints, claims, liabilities, obligations, promises, agreements, actions, or causes of action, . . . of any nature whatsoever, including but not limited to employment discrimination claims arising under local, state or federal statute, regulation, or ordinance relating to employment discrimination or other employment conditions, or prohibiting termination or retaliation for reporting a violation of the law . . . which the [Plaintiff] may ever before have or claim to have had, from the beginning of the world through the date of this agreement." (Dkt. No. 16, Attach. 1, ¶ 5 [Ex. A to Def.'s Answer]) (emphasis added). Plaintiff does not specify what claims he believed he was waiving when he entered into the Stipulation of Settlement or explain how any of his claims filed with the DHR and EEOC are different from those asserted here. (See generally Dkt. No. 34.) The fact that the language contained in the Stipulation of Settlement did not specifically reference Title VII does not support Plaintiff's argument because the language states that Plaintiff would be waiving any retaliation and discrimination claims he may have had against the Cheesecake Factory. See Smith v. Amedisys Inc., 298 F.3d 434, 443 (5
Second, as Defendant has repeatedly noted in its motion papers, DHR assisted the parties with the Stipulation of Settlement and Plaintiff has not alleged, or even argued, that he was coerced into entering this agreement, under duress or incapacitated at the time it was executed, or subjected to anything that would call the enforceability of the Stipulation of Settlement into question.
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that, under the totality of the circumstances, Plaintiff's execution of the Stipulation of Settlement and the waiver of his rights were both knowing and voluntary. Therefore, the Stipulation of Settlement is enforceable and Plaintiff has waived his right to pursue his claims in the present action against Defendant.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter Judgment for Defendant and close this case.
