Erazo v. IGH Restoration LLC
- Ho
- 1:23-cv-03982
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Erazo v. IGH Restoration, Judge Ho denied defendants’ summary-judgment motion because evidence disputed whether IGH had enough employees for Title VII.
Maria Erazo’s Title VII claims against IGH Restoration LLC, Jose Adorno, and Masael Cruz were allowed to proceed past this summary-judgment motion; the court did not decide the ultimate merits of those claims.
What happened
In Erazo v. IGH Restoration LLC, Maria Erazo alleged that she experienced sexual harassment by Masael Cruz and was terminated by IGH after reporting the harassment. She brought claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.
Defendants sought partial summary judgment on Erazo’s Title VII claims, arguing that IGH was not covered by Title VII because it did not have at least 15 employees during the required period. Erazo disputed that claim, pointing to evidence that IGH had approximately 30 employees and paid some workers in cash.
The court found a genuine factual dispute about IGH’s employee count and denied the motion for partial summary judgment as to Erazo’s Title VII claims. Judge Dale E. Ho ruled that a reasonable jury could find that IGH qualified as an employer under Title VII.
The detailed version
- Erazo v. IGH Restoration LLC · No. 1:23-cv-03982
- Ho
- Aug. 8, 2025
Background
Maria Erazo alleged that she was sexually harassed by Masael Cruz while employed as a painter by IGH Restoration LLC from April 8, 2021, to June 8, 2021. She further alleged that IGH terminated her shortly after she disclosed the harassment to another employee, who reported it to IGH’s owner, Jose Adorno. Erazo brought claims for sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, as well as claims under the New York City Human Rights Law.
After discovery, Defendants moved for partial summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 on Erazo’s Title VII claims. Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Defendants argued that IGH was not an “employer” covered by Title VII because it did not have at least 15 employees on each working day during 20 or more calendar weeks in the relevant year or the preceding year.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that Defendants had to show that no genuine factual dispute existed about whether IGH met Title VII’s employee-count requirement. The record, viewed in the light most favorable to Erazo, did not support that conclusion.
Defendants submitted an affidavit from IGH’s accountant stating that payroll records showed IGH did not have 15 or more employees during the required period. But other evidence contradicted that statement. Defendants had stated in interrogatory responses that IGH maintained approximately 30 employees from 2020 to 2021. Defendants also did not submit records for cash payroll, while Erazo stated that she and other employees were paid in cash. Erazo further stated that more than 15 people waited in line with her on each payday and that, although Defendants did not dispute that she was an employee, her name did not appear in their payroll records.
The court held that these inconsistencies created a genuine dispute of material fact about the number of employees IGH had during the relevant period. The evidence could allow a reasonable jury to find that IGH qualified as an employer under Title VII.
Disposition
Judge Dale E. Ho denied Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment as to Erazo’s Title VII claims. The opinion did not resolve the ultimate merits of Erazo’s harassment, discrimination, or retaliation claims. The Clerk of Court was requested to terminate the motion docket entry, ECF No. 53.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.