Dittes v. ChargeAfter USA, Inc.

Background

Tia Dittes sued her former employers, ChargeAfter, Inc. and ChargeAfter USA, Inc., and her former supervisors, Mark Denman and Michael Wilde. She alleged violations of the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York Labor Law, as well as breach of her employment contract.

Dittes worked in ChargeAfter’s sales division from December 1, 2021, through March 16, 2023. She was promoted twice and alleged that she helped develop accounts involving Walmart, La-Z-Boy, and Samsung. She claimed that the accounts were reassigned to male employees, who received signing bonuses and commissions that she expected to receive. She also alleged that Denman belittled her efforts, Wilde excluded her from some work communications, and the workplace had a culture in which women were treated with disdain. Defendants later terminated her employment.

Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Dittes opposed the motion and alternatively asked for permission to amend her complaint.

Human-Rights Claims

The court dismissed Dittes’s seven claims under the New York State and New York City human-rights laws for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Those claims included discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, supervisor liability, interference with protected rights, and aiding and abetting discriminatory conduct.

The court explained that these state and city laws require a nonresident plaintiff to allege that the challenged conduct had an impact on the plaintiff in New York State or New York City, respectively. Dittes lived in Oklahoma and did not allege that she worked in New York or that the alleged discrimination and retaliation affected her there. The court found that ChargeAfter’s New York City office, its registration to do business in New York, and the presence of a supervisor in New York were only tangential connections. The court also relied on an affidavit stating that Dittes was based in Oklahoma, worked on accounts throughout the United States, traveled to New York only once or twice, and did not have New York State or New York City tax withholdings.

New York Labor Law Claims

The court dismissed Dittes’s claims under New York Labor Law sections 194 and 215. Section 194 was the basis for her unequal-pay claim, and section 215 was the basis for her retaliation claim.

The court stated that the New York Labor Law does not expressly apply outside New York and that the key question is where the employee performed the work. Because Dittes did not allege that she performed the relevant work in New York, the court concluded that she failed to state claims under those provisions.

Breach of Contract Claim

The court also dismissed Dittes’s breach of contract claim. To state such a claim, a plaintiff must identify the contract, her performance, the defendant’s breach, and resulting damages. The court further explained that the complaint must identify the essential contract terms, including the specific provision allegedly breached.

Dittes alleged that her employment agreement required ChargeAfter to pay her commissions and that Defendants breached the agreement by withholding commissions on the Walmart, La-Z-Boy, and Samsung accounts. The court found that she did not identify a contract provision giving her a right to remain on an account, or entitling her to a bonus or commission after an account was reassigned. The court also stated that Dittes abandoned this claim by not responding to Defendants’ request to dismiss it.

Amendment and Disposition

The court granted Dittes’s request for permission to amend her complaint. It directed that, if she amended, she must attempt to address each basis for dismissal identified by the court and the other grounds raised in Defendants’ motion papers.

Judge Ronnie Abrams granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Dittes was given 30 days to amend the complaint, provided she had a good-faith basis to do so. The clerk was directed to close the pending motions.