Mazzuchelli v. Immutable PTY LTD

Background

Natalia Mazzuchelli sued Immutable PTY. LTD and Lightsource Global under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. She alleged that Anderson, her supervisor at Immutable, made repeated sexual comments and overtures, questioned whether Mazzuchelli could perform her job while pregnant, gave her a negative performance review after she disclosed her pregnancy, and that Mazzuchelli was fired shortly after disclosing her pregnancy and complaining about discrimination.

Both defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to plausibly support a legal claim. Immutable also moved under Rule 12(f) to strike portions of the amended complaint as improper or scandalous.

Rulings on Lightsource

The court granted Lightsource’s motion to dismiss as to every claim against it and dismissed those claims without prejudice. The complaint alleged that Lightsource participated in the employment agreement and handled an employee-separation form, but it did not adequately allege that Lightsource paid Mazzuchelli, controlled her day-to-day work, or had authority to terminate her. The court therefore found that the complaint did not plausibly establish an employer-employee relationship under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, or the California law.

Rulings on Immutable

The court granted Immutable’s motion to dismiss without prejudice as to all of Mazzuchelli’s FEHA claims. The FEHA discrimination and retaliation claims did not satisfy the statute’s territorial requirement because the alleged employment actions occurred in New York, Mazzuchelli was not a California resident, and her place of employment was not in California. The court also dismissed the FEHA sexual-harassment claim because the complaint did not plausibly allege conduct severe enough to create a hostile or abusive work environment.

The court granted Immutable’s motion to dismiss without prejudice as to the New York State Human Rights Law sexual-harassment claim because the alleged harassment occurred in California, on a flight to Los Angeles, and in Australia rather than in New York. It also granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice as to the Title VII sexual-harassment claim, finding that the four alleged incidents, considered together, were not sufficiently pervasive and were not adequately alleged to have threatened or humiliated Mazzuchelli or unreasonably interfered with her work.

The court denied Immutable’s motion to dismiss as to Mazzuchelli’s Title VII and New York State Human Rights Law retaliation claims. It found that she plausibly alleged protected complaints about discrimination, employer awareness, termination, and a causal connection based on the close timing between her complaint and her firing.

The court also denied Immutable’s motion to dismiss as to the Title VII and New York State Human Rights Law discrimination claims. It found that Mazzuchelli plausibly alleged that she was in a protected group because she was female and pregnant, was qualified, suffered termination, and faced circumstances supporting an inference of discriminatory intent, including pregnancy-related comments, a negative review, and termination soon after her pregnancy disclosure.

Motion to Strike and Next Steps

The court denied Immutable’s motion to strike portions of the First Amended Complaint. It concluded that the factual allegations underlying Mazzuchelli’s discrimination and harassment claims should not be removed at this stage merely because they were provocative.

Judge Nelson S. Román granted Mazzuchelli leave to file a Second Amended Complaint by December 20, 2024. If she did not timely file one, the claims dismissed without prejudice would be deemed dismissed with prejudice. If she filed an amended complaint, defendants were directed to answer or otherwise respond by January 17, 2025.