Socorro-Prospero v. M. Booth and Associates

Background

Jonatan Socorro-Prospero worked as a video producer for M. Booth beginning in 2019. He alleged that senior video producer Gabriel Guzman subjected him to harassment based on his sexual orientation, race, and ethnicity, and that his supervisor and the company failed to respond adequately. After Socorro-Prospero reported the conduct, M. Booth separated him from Guzman, changed his supervisor, investigated the allegations, and terminated Guzman.

Socorro-Prospero later took approved leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act because of psychological distress. When he returned, M. Booth allowed him to work remotely except when in-person photo shoots were necessary. He requested reassignment, that he not report to Brian Wheeler, and continued remote work when feasible. In March 2022, he declined two required in-person shoots and sought other arrangements. M. Booth said the shoots required physical presence, offered to discuss other accommodations, and asked him to provide further proposals. Socorro-Prospero did not provide additional proposals on the schedule he had identified, and M. Booth terminated his employment on March 28, 2022.

Claims and Summary-Judgment Standard

Socorro-Prospero asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Defendants moved for summary judgment, which is a ruling entered when the evidence shows that no reasonable jury could find for the opposing party on a material issue.

Federal Claims

The court held that Socorro-Prospero forfeited his Section 1981, Family and Medical Leave Act, and Americans with Disabilities Act interactive-process claims, except for disability claims concerning his termination, because his opposition and sur-reply did not address those claims with developed arguments.

The court held that the Title VII hostile-work-environment claim was untimely. Socorro-Prospero filed his charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on April 29, 2022, so conduct occurring before July 3, 2021, generally fell outside the 300-day filing period. The court found that the alleged harassment ended in May 2021, when Socorro-Prospero and Guzman stopped working together. The court rejected the argument that the claim was timely under the continuing-violation rule because Socorro-Prospero identified no harassment or threat of harassment during the filing period. The court also stated that, even if the Title VII claim were timely, summary judgment would still be appropriate.

The court ruled that the individual defendants could not be held personally liable under Title VII because they were not Socorro-Prospero’s employers. It also found no evidence that Guzman had the authority to take significant employment actions against Socorro-Prospero or used supervisory authority to carry out the alleged harassment. As to M. Booth and Next Fifteen Communications Corporation, the court found that they provided a way to make complaints, separated Socorro-Prospero from Guzman, investigated the allegations, and terminated Guzman. The evidence therefore did not create a triable issue about whether the corporate defendants failed to respond reasonably to the harassment.

For the disability discrimination and retaliation claims concerning the termination, the court held that the evidence did not support a finding that the termination was caused by Socorro-Prospero’s disability or accommodation requests. The court emphasized that M. Booth had discussed accommodations with him and had already permitted remote work when in-person shoots were not necessary. It found no genuine dispute about defendants’ stated reason for termination: Socorro-Prospero’s refusal to perform required in-person photo shoots and failure to continue proposing alternative accommodations. The court also held that there was no evidence that this stated reason was a pretext, meaning a cover for unlawful discrimination or retaliation.

State and City Claims

After resolving the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to decide related state-law claims, over the New York State and New York City claims. The court cited the different standards under those laws, the limited federal judicial resources already devoted to the state and city claims, fairness and comity concerns, and the possibility that Socorro-Prospero might replead some claims in state court.

Disposition

Judge Arun Subramanian granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to all federal claims. Because the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state- and city-law claims, it dismissed those claims without prejudice. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion and close the case.