Soto v. Vanguard Construction and Development Company Inc.

Background

Socrates Soto alleged that Vanguard Construction and Development Company, Inc. (Vanguard), his former supervisor Andy Finley, and Vanguard’s owner Michael Strauss created a hostile work environment based on his sex, race, and ethnicity. Soto alleged that Finley grabbed and squeezed his chest and buttocks on December 21, 2020; mistreated two Hispanic carpenters; made derogatory comments about immigrants; and told Hispanic employees that they should be able to speak English. Soto complained to Vanguard’s human-resources administrator on January 7, 2021.

Soto further alleged that, after his complaint, Vanguard assigned him less-desirable or punitive work, including cleanup duties. He also alleged that Strauss tried to persuade him to abandon his complaint. Soto asserted federal claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for a hostile work environment and retaliation. He also asserted discrimination and retaliation claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law, assault and battery claims against Finley, and negligence and gross-negligence claims against Vanguard and Strauss.

Motions and Legal Standard

Vanguard and Strauss jointly moved to dismiss, and Finley separately moved to dismiss, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. At that stage, the court accepted the complaint’s factual allegations as true but required enough factual detail to make the claimed right to relief plausible, rather than merely possible or speculative.

Title VII Hostile-Work-Environment Claim

The court dismissed Cause of Action I, which alleged a hostile work environment based on sex, race, and ethnicity. Regarding race and ethnicity, the court held that the three incidents Soto identified were not sufficiently severe or frequent to plausibly alter the conditions of his employment. The court also noted that the conduct was not directed at Soto in two of the incidents and that one incident involved carpenters employed by another company. The alleged comments and incidents therefore amounted to isolated offensive conduct rather than a sufficiently continuous and severe workplace environment.

Regarding sex-based harassment, the court explained that same-sex sexual harassment can violate Title VII, but the plaintiff must still plead facts showing that the conduct occurred because of sex. The court found that Soto’s allegations that female employees would have been treated differently were unsupported conclusions. Because the complaint did not provide specific facts about how Finley treated employees of different sexes, it did not plausibly allege that the physical contact occurred because Soto was male.

Title VII Retaliation Claim

The court dismissed Cause of Action II, Soto’s Title VII retaliation claim. Soto alleged that Vanguard assigned him less-desirable duties after he complained to human resources. The court found the allegations too vague because Soto did not identify who assigned the duties, when the assignments occurred, what the assignments were, or what work he had received before his complaint. The complaint also did not provide enough information about the timing of the alleged retaliation or other facts linking the assignments to his protected complaint.

State and City Claims

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to decide related state-law claims in the same federal case, over Causes of Action III through XI. Those causes of action included claims under New York State and New York City law, assault and battery, and negligence and gross negligence. The court dismissed those causes of action without prejudice rather than deciding their merits.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court granted Soto leave to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint had to be filed within thirty days of the opinion and order and would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. Soto could replead any claims, including the state and city claims.

The court granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss. It dismissed Causes of Action I and II without prejudice for failure to state a claim, dismissed Causes of Action III through XI without prejudice after declining supplemental jurisdiction, and granted Soto leave to amend. If Soto failed to file an amended complaint within thirty days or obtain an extension, the court stated that it would dismiss Causes of Action I and II with prejudice and direct the Clerk of Court to close the case.