Bloise v. Q4 Generational Wealth, Inc.

Background

Alicia Bloise brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law against Q4 Generational Wealth, Inc., Melanie Burgos, and Jahee Bridgewater. The opinion refers to Burgos and Bridgewater as the individual defendants.

The individual defendants first moved to dismiss based on allegedly inadequate service and failure to state a claim. A magistrate judge recommended denying the service challenge, dismissing the complaint for failure to satisfy the federal pleading rule, and allowing Bloise to amend. Bloise then filed an amended complaint. The individual defendants later moved to dismiss that amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), which addresses whether a complaint adequately states a legal claim.

Review of the Recommendation

The magistrate judge recommended granting the later motion to dismiss in part and denying it in part. Specifically, the recommendation called for granting dismissal of all claims against Bridgewater. As to Burgos, it recommended denying dismissal of Bloise’s Section 1981 hostile-work-environment claim, NYSHRL claim, and NYCHRL claims identified as the Eleventh and Twelfth Causes of Action. It also recommended allowing Bloise to amend.

The parties had fourteen days to object to the recommendation, but no timely objections were filed. The district court concluded that Burgos’s later letter asking about the case and requesting dismissal was not a timely or sufficiently specific objection. The court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.

Disposition

The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in full. The individual defendants’ motion to dismiss was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

The court dismissed:

- Bloise’s Section 1981 hostile-work-environment claim against Bridgewater; - Bloise’s Section 1981 termination and retaliation claims against both individual defendants; - Bloise’s NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims against Bridgewater; and - Bloise’s NYCHRL retaliation claim against Burgos.

The court stated that all claims against Bridgewater were dismissed. The claims that remained against Burgos were Bloise’s Fifth Cause of Action under Section 1981, limited to hostile work environment; Eighth Cause of Action under the NYSHRL; and Eleventh and Twelfth Causes of Action under the NYCHRL. The court granted Bloise leave to amend. The action remained referred to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron for specified pretrial matters and dispositive motions requiring a recommendation.