Peterec v. TGI Fridays, Inc.

Background

John L. Peterec, proceeding without a lawyer, sued TGI Fridays Franchisor, LLC; TGI Fridays, Inc., doing business as WOW BAO; David Alvarez-Tudares; Rene M. Mejia; and John Bogle. He asserted age-discrimination, retaliation, and hostile-work-environment claims under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the New York State Human Rights Law.

Peterec alleged that he worked as a dishwasher at a TGI Fridays location in Wallkill, New York. He claimed that Alvarez-Tudares, his supervisor, reduced or eliminated shifts, told him he had reconsidered hiring Peterec because of his age, and later laid him off. Peterec alleged that, after he returned to work, Mejia repeatedly shortened his shifts and told him to let a younger worker take over. He also alleged that other workers were allowed to work full shifts and that his scheduled work was later removed. Peterec contacted the company’s human-resources department about the layoff and being sent home.

Fridays Franchisor’s Motion

Fridays Franchisor moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The court treated the motion as a pleading challenge and did not consider the franchisor’s extra-complaint declaration. The court explained that both the federal and New York statutes require an employer-employee relationship, and that the federal statute also requires an employer to have at least 20 employees during the relevant period.

The court held that Peterec did not allege facts showing that Fridays Franchisor met the federal employee-number requirement. He also did not adequately allege that Fridays Franchisor directly employed him, jointly employed him with another entity, or was sufficiently integrated with his employer to be treated as a single employer. Peterec’s pay stubs and tax form identified TGI Fridays, Inc. as his employer, while his complaint alleged only limited connections between that entity and Fridays Franchisor. The court therefore granted Fridays Franchisor’s motion, dismissing Peterec’s claims against that defendant.

Individual Defendants’ Motion

The individual defendants moved to dismiss the discrimination, hostile-environment, retaliation, and constructive-discharge claims and argued that Peterec had not adequately alleged any claim against Bogle. The court noted that individuals cannot be held liable under the federal age-discrimination statute, so it considered the claims against the individual defendants under the New York statute.

Age discrimination. The court held that Peterec plausibly alleged New York age-discrimination claims against Alvarez-Tudares and Mejia. The alleged comments about Peterec’s age and about letting a younger worker take over were made by supervisors and were closely connected to alleged adverse employment actions, including layoffs, shortened shifts, and schedule changes. The court also considered allegations that the stated business-slowdown explanation was pretextual, including Peterec’s claim that business was not slow and that other dishwashers were allowed to continue working. The court therefore allowed the New York discrimination claims to proceed.

Hostile work environment. The court also denied the motion as to Peterec’s New York hostile-work-environment claim. It applied the New York statute’s more lenient standard, under which a plaintiff must allege that employment terms or conditions were made worse because of a protected characteristic. The court concluded that the combination of repeated age-related comments, shortened shifts, and removals from work plausibly alleged that Peterec was treated less favorably because of his age.

Retaliation. The court dismissed the retaliation claim. Peterec alleged that he called human resources to complain about an unjust layoff and later about being sent home, but he did not allege that he complained about age discrimination or otherwise engaged in legally protected activity. He also did not allege facts connecting those calls to later adverse employment actions.

Constructive discharge. The court dismissed the constructive-discharge claim because constructive discharge requires an employee actually to resign after working conditions become intolerable. Peterec alleged that he was terminated while trying to report to work, not that he resigned.

John Bogle. The court dismissed all claims against Bogle. The complaint contained no adequate allegations that Bogle participated in discriminatory conduct. Peterec had no direct contact with Bogle and relied on Mejia’s statement that Bogle had directed a schedule change, which the court found insufficient to establish Bogle’s involvement, knowledge, or approval of discrimination.

Disposition

Judge Karas granted Fridays Franchisor’s motion and granted in part and denied in part the individual defendants’ motion. The New York age-discrimination and hostile-work-environment claims survived. All other claims were dismissed, including the claims against Fridays Franchisor, the retaliation and constructive-discharge claims, and the claims against Bogle.

The court stated that the dismissals were without prejudice because this was the first adjudication of the claims on the merits. Peterec was given 30 days from the date of the Opinion and Order to file an amended complaint if he had a good-faith basis to do so. The amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the existing complaint. If he did not properly and timely amend, the non-surviving claims would be dismissed with prejudice. The court directed the clerk to terminate the two pending motions.