Scivetti v. Compass Inc.

Background

Daniela Scivetti sued Compass Inc., Slater Consulting Corp., Trove Partners Inc., and individual supervisors Julian Berkeley, Ian Slater, Michael Koeneke, and Brett Walsdorf. She alleged that she experienced sexual harassment and a hostile work environment, that the defendants failed to respond to her complaints, and that they retaliated by assigning her menial tasks, ending her position, affecting her Compass licensing status, and declining to hire her for other positions. She brought four federal claims and fifteen state-law claims, including claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and a claim concerning required notices about continuing health coverage under the federal Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA).

Walsdorf settled with Scivetti around the time the defendants filed their motions to dismiss. The claims against the other defendants remained. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). On a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), the court considers whether the complaint alleges enough facts to plausibly support relief. The court said it would consider the allegations in the complaint, not the outside evidence submitted by the parties.

Rulings on the Employment Relationship

The court rejected Compass’s argument that Scivetti had not adequately alleged an employment relationship. Scivetti alleged that Compass managed her onboarding and training, set her work hours and location, required Compass-branded materials and apparel, required use of Compass software and email, required attendance at Compass meetings, and managed her real-estate license. The court held that these allegations plausibly supported a joint-employer relationship and allowed claims against Compass to proceed past that issue.

The court distinguished a joint-employer relationship from a single-employer relationship. It concluded that Scivetti had not plausibly alleged that Compass and the Slater Team were actually one integrated entity because she did not allege Compass’s involvement in hiring and firing, common ownership or control, or other facts showing that the entities were a single organization.

Federal Claims

Title VII discrimination claim. The court dismissed Count I as untimely. Scivetti filed her Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint on June 13, 2023, after entering a tolling agreement with the defendants on May 5, 2023. The court determined that the potentially timely period began July 7, 2022. Although the complaint stated that the harassment continued until July 27, 2022, it did not identify any specific discriminatory act occurring within the relevant period. The court therefore concluded that the continuing-violation exception did not save the claim.

Title VII retaliation claims. The court dismissed Counts II and III because Scivetti did not plausibly allege that the defendants knew about her protected complaints. The court found that complaining to Walsdorf about sexual harassment was protected activity. But the complaint did not allege that Scivetti told anyone else about Koeneke’s conduct, or that Walsdorf told Slater, Berkeley, or anyone involved in Scivetti’s termination about her specific complaints. The complaint alleged only that Walsdorf informed Slater generally about Koeneke’s behavior.

COBRA notice claim. The court dismissed Count IV without prejudice. A COBRA notice claim seeking statutory damages must identify the actual administrator of the group health plan as a defendant. Scivetti’s complaint did not identify any defendant as the plan administrator. The court therefore dismissed this count without prejudice against all defendants.

State-Law Claims and Disposition

Because all four federal claims were dismissed, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. The court stated that the case was dismissed but gave Scivetti an opportunity to seek leave to amend the complaint and correct the identified defects. Within 30 days, she was ordered to submit a letter motion of no more than five pages explaining how proposed amendments would make Counts I through IV plausible, together with a proposed amended complaint and a redline comparing it with the original. The defendants were given 14 days to respond in a single joint letter brief.

Judge Dale E. Ho granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss. Counts I through III were dismissed, Count IV was dismissed without prejudice, and Scivetti was permitted to seek leave to amend. The opinion did not resolve the remaining state-law claims on their merits.