Cassard v. Omnicom Media Group Holdings

Background

Renee Cassard sued Omnicom Media Group Holdings, Inc. (OMG), Omnicom Group, Inc. (OGI), OMD USA LLC (OMD), and Ralph Pardo. She alleged age and gender discrimination and retaliation under the New York State Human Rights Law, New York Labor Law § 740, the New York City Human Rights Law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Cassard alleged that she worked under OMG, that Pardo supervised or had supervisory authority over her, and that Pardo reduced her role and made other decisions that she viewed as discriminatory. She also alleged that her employment ended after she reported discrimination.

OMG and OMD answered the amended complaint. OGI and Pardo moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not plead enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. Cassard opposed OGI’s motion but did not oppose Pardo’s motion.

Claims Against OGI

OGI argued that Cassard improperly used group pleading by referring collectively to OMG, OGI, and OMD as “Omnicom,” without identifying which entity employed the relevant people or took the alleged actions. OGI also argued that Cassard had not exhausted administrative remedies against OGI on the federal claims, but the court did not reach that alternative argument.

The court held that Cassard did not plead enough facts to support treating OGI and OMG as a single employer. The court applied four factors: the relationship between the companies’ operations, centralized control of labor relations, common management, and common ownership or financial control. The court found that Cassard plausibly alleged common ownership because OMG was a wholly owned subsidiary of OGI, but that fact alone was insufficient.

The court found that Cassard’s allegations about work performed for OGI or other OGI entities did not show that OGI directed or supervised her daily work. The allegations that OGI managed benefits, retirement savings, and equity awards, coordinated human-resources policies, and required compliance with a code of conduct also did not plausibly show that OGI controlled the employment decisions at the center of Cassard’s claims. Cassard did not allege that OGI controlled the decisions involving the alleged discrimination, retaliation, or termination. The court also found no sufficient allegations of common management.

Because Cassard did not plausibly allege that OGI was her employer or a single employer with the other defendants, the court granted OGI’s motion to dismiss all claims against OGI. The court dismissed those claims with prejudice because Cassard had already amended her complaint after receiving notice of similar pleading problems and did not identify facts that another amendment would add to cure them.

Claims Against Pardo

Pardo moved to dismiss the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Causes of Action, which asserted claims under Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The court granted the motion because those federal statutes do not impose liability on individual defendants. Cassard did not oppose Pardo’s motion. The court dismissed those three federal causes of action against Pardo with prejudice.

Disposition

The court granted OGI’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice. It also granted Pardo’s motion to dismiss the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Causes of Action against him with prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate OGI as a defendant and terminate the two motions. The order did not dismiss the claims against OMG or OMD.