Ruiz v. Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank

Background

Ruiz alleged that he was a former Bank employee and that Botting, who at times supervised him from the Bank’s London office while Ruiz worked from New York, discriminated against him and other nonwhite employees. The alleged conduct included humiliating and demeaning comments, frequent criticism, reassignment of Asia trading-desk responsibilities to a white trader, and treatment that Ruiz believed was based on race or national origin. Ruiz also alleged that after he reported Botting’s conduct to Human Resources in October 2018 and raised racial-discrimination concerns again in February 2019, he received a disciplinary warning, a negative performance review, a reduced bonus, and other adverse treatment.

Ruiz asserted disparate-treatment, hostile-work-environment, and retaliation claims against Botting under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). The Bank’s separate claims were not at issue in this opinion. Botting moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2), which challenges personal jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which challenges whether the complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Personal jurisdiction

The court held that New York had personal jurisdiction over Botting. It relied on allegations that Botting supervised Ruiz from London, communicated with him in New York nearly every day, directed allegedly discriminatory conduct toward him there, and participated in a work dinner in New York where allegedly discriminatory comments were made. The court emphasized that whether the allegations were sufficient to state discrimination claims was a separate question from whether they supported jurisdiction. Botting’s Rule 12(b)(2) motion was DENIED.

NYSHRL claims

The court applied the pre-October 11, 2019 version of the NYSHRL because the conduct alleged against Botting occurred before that amendment’s effective date. It held that Botting, as a Bank employee, was not an “employer” who could be sued individually under the NYSHRL provisions at issue. Although the statute can impose liability on a non-employer who aids or abets discriminatory conduct, Ruiz had not asserted an aiding-and-abetting claim and could not treat Botting as aiding and abetting his own violation. Botting’s motion to dismiss Ruiz’s NYSHRL claim was GRANTED.

Timeliness and NYCHRL claims

The court declined to dismiss the NYCHRL disparate-treatment claim based on Botting’s reassignment of Asia trading-desk responsibilities. The complaint did not specify whether the 2017 reassignment occurred before or after the relevant limitations date, so its untimeliness was not clear from the complaint. The motion was DENIED as to this incident.

The court also held that Ruiz plausibly alleged NYCHRL disparate treatment. It reasoned that removing responsibilities could have embarrassed Ruiz and reduced his compensation opportunity, and that Botting’s statement that the white traders were what trading managers “look like,” followed by the reassignment to one of them, supported a minimal inference of discrimination. Botting’s motion to dismiss this claim was DENIED.

The court held that Ruiz plausibly alleged an NYCHRL hostile-work-environment claim. It considered the allegations of repeated criticism and hostility, the reassignment of responsibilities, favorable treatment of white employees, criticism of nonwhite employees, and Botting’s alleged acceptance of racist comments by a subordinate. The court concluded that the alleged conduct could exceed petty slights and could have been motivated at least partly by race. Botting’s motion to dismiss this claim was DENIED.

For retaliation, the court held that Ruiz plausibly alleged that his October 2018 report to Human Resources was protected activity and that the severance discussion, disciplinary warning, negative review, and reduced bonus were actions reasonably likely to deter a person from complaining about discrimination. The court also found sufficient allegations at this stage to infer Botting’s knowledge and a causal connection based partly on the timing. The NYCHRL retaliation claim connected to events between October and December 2018 may proceed, and the motion to dismiss that portion was DENIED.

The court reached a different result for the later retaliation allegations. Ruiz did not allege facts showing that Botting participated in adverse events after February 2019, when Botting was no longer Ruiz’s supervisor, and Ruiz did not plead a theory that Botting caused those later actions through another supervisor. The motion to dismiss the remaining portion of the retaliation claim was GRANTED.

Disposition

The court denied Botting’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. It granted in part and denied in part Botting’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Ruiz’s NYCHRL disparate-treatment claim concerning the Asia-desk responsibilities, NYCHRL hostile-work-environment claim, and NYCHRL retaliation claim concerning events from October through December 2018 may proceed. The opinion states that Ruiz’s remaining claims were dismissed. Judge Vernon S. Broderick directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motion.