Singh v. Accutime Watch Corp.

Background

Daman Singh alleged that Accutime Watch Corp. intentionally discriminated against him because of his Indian national origin and Sikh religion. He asserted claims for disparate treatment and hostile work environment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Singh alleged that he performed more work than coworker Saudia Mumu while receiving the same salary. He also alleged that Josh Raider and Jennifer Sacco, whom he described as less productive, received salary raises while he did not. In his amended complaint, Singh added that Mumu managed Accutime’s advertising operation, that their roles were substantially similar and intertwined, and that Mumu, Raider, Sacco, and Singh worked under the same supervisor, Marc Shama. The amended complaint omitted Singh’s earlier retaliation claims.

The court had previously granted Accutime’s first motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), while allowing Singh to amend his complaint. Accutime then filed a second Rule 12(b)(6) motion directed at the amended complaint.

Legal standard

Rule 12(b)(6) requires dismissal when a complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted. At this stage, the court accepts factual allegations as true but does not accept legal conclusions presented as facts. The complaint must contain enough factual content to make the claim plausible, rather than merely possible.

Disparate treatment

The court held that Singh still had not plausibly alleged that Accutime treated him less favorably than similarly situated employees because of his national origin or religion. The court found that the amended complaint did not explain Mumu’s responsibilities or how Mumu’s role compared with Singh’s role. It also found that Singh’s statement that their roles were “substantially similar” was a legal conclusion rather than useful factual detail.

The court further noted that Singh alleged he had assumed Mumu’s responsibilities after deciding that Mumu lacked the necessary skills. Singh did not allege that Accutime assigned him a more burdensome workload. The fact that Singh and Mumu received the same salary did not, by itself, show discriminatory treatment.

As to Raider and Sacco, the amended complaint added only that they shared Singh’s supervisor. It did not provide enough information about their seniority, salaries, job responsibilities, or workplace treatment to establish that they were appropriate comparators. The court therefore adhered to its earlier conclusion that Singh had not plausibly alleged disparate treatment under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, or the New York City Human Rights Law.

Hostile work environment

The court also held that Singh had not stated a hostile work environment claim. For the federal and New York State claims, such a claim requires allegations that discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, or insults were severe enough to alter the conditions of employment. The New York City law uses a more lenient standard, but still requires unequal treatment based on a protected characteristic.

The court found that Singh’s allegations about doing extra work did not show that the work distribution was imposed because of his national origin or religion. Singh alleged that he voluntarily took on Mumu’s responsibilities, and the court concluded that receiving the same salary while doing additional voluntarily assumed work did not establish a hostile work environment.

Disposition

The court granted Accutime’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 26, enter a judgment of dismissal, and close the case. The opinion does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.