Kiseleva v. Litman

Background

Alla Kiseleva worked as an aesthetic medical provider at BeautyFix from July 2015 through December 2021. She alleged that the BeautyFix entities and employees Mark Greenspan, Adam Litman, and Maya Benayoun discriminated against her because of her Russian and Slavic ancestry and ethnicity.

Kiseleva alleged that BeautyFix treated non-Slavic, non-Russian employees more favorably. In particular, she claimed that she was classified as an independent contractor even though she should have been classified as an employee; that she did not receive the benefits and protections associated with employee status; that she received $4,000 in maternity pay while a non-SEE injector received the promised $6,000; and that she was required to work Saturdays when non-SEE personnel could opt out. She also alleged that she did not receive bonuses that other employees received and that Greenspan and Litman made insulting or offensive comments, including comments involving Russian swear words.

Kiseleva asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The defendants moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim.

Disparate-treatment claims

The court held that Kiseleva adequately pleaded employment-discrimination claims against the BeautyFix entities under Section 1981. That statute protects against discrimination based on race, including ancestry and ethnic characteristics. The court concluded that her allegations of Russian ancestry and Slavic ethnicity placed her within a protected group for purposes of the pleading stage.

The court found that the alleged misclassification, denial of promised bonuses and maternity pay, and Saturday-work requirement could qualify as materially adverse employment actions. It determined, however, that Kiseleva did not adequately connect the denied bonus to discrimination because she alleged only that non-SEE employees, rather than comparable injectors, received bonuses. The allegations that she was denied marketing and public-relations resources, recognition, and the ability to refuse patients were not sufficiently serious, and enforcing a non-compete agreement was not an adverse employment action on the facts alleged.

The court found a sufficient inference of discrimination as to the alleged misclassification, reduced maternity pay, and Saturday-work requirement because Kiseleva identified more favorably treated non-SEE comparators. The court therefore allowed the Section 1981 disparate-treatment claim against the Employer Defendants to proceed based on those allegations. Because the pleading standards were generally the same, the court also allowed the related New York State and New York City discrimination claims against the Employer Defendants to proceed.

Claims against individual defendants

The court held that Kiseleva adequately alleged individual claims against Litman and Greenspan. She alleged that Litman controlled worker classification and ignored her requests to correct her status, and that she notified both Litman and Greenspan about the alleged misclassification without receiving corrective action. Those allegations showed the required personal involvement for the individual claims under Section 1981 and supported liability under the state and city human-rights laws.

The court dismissed the claims against Benayoun individually because the amended complaint alleged only that she had supervisory authority and did not describe conduct connecting her to the alleged discrimination. Supervisory status alone was not enough.

Hostile-work-environment claims

The court dismissed Kiseleva’s hostile-work-environment claims against all defendants. Although the alleged conduct could be viewed as rude and unprofessional, the court concluded that the alleged references to Kiseleva as a “workhorse” and “machine,” along with Litman’s use of Russian curse words and jokes, were not severe or pervasive enough to create a legally hostile or abusive workplace.

Disposition

The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss in part and granted it in part. Kiseleva’s disparate-treatment claims under Section 1981, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law could proceed against the BeautyFix entities, Greenspan, and Litman, subject to the limits described in the opinion. The hostile-work-environment claims against all defendants were dismissed, as were the claims against Benayoun individually.

The court granted Kiseleva leave to file a Second Amended Complaint addressing only the dismissed claims, with a deadline of November 14, 2024.