Nelson v. Argyropoulous

Background

Anthony B. Nelson alleged that he experienced race- and age-based harassment and discrimination while working as a certified product specialist at Victory Auto Group, a car dealership operated by Spartan Auto Group LLC. The complaint alleged that supervisors and managers used racial and age-based epithets, that another employee physically struck Nelson, and that Nelson’s commissions and reward payments were reduced or diverted.

Nelson asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The motion addressed in this order was filed by Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc. (MMNA), which the complaint apparently named incorrectly as “Mitsubishi North America.”

Motion to Dismiss

MMNA moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. MMNA argued that Nelson had not alleged facts showing that MMNA was his employer and therefore could not be liable for the alleged employment discrimination.

The court explained that an employment relationship is required for the employment-discrimination claims at issue. Courts generally examine the common-law agency relationship, including whether the alleged employer paid the worker and whether it controlled the manner and means of the work.

The complaint alleged that Nelson and other sales personnel were deprived of commission and reward money from Mitsubishi. Read liberally, that allegation could support an inference that Nelson received at least some compensation from MMNA. But the complaint did not plausibly allege that MMNA controlled Nelson’s work or took other actions showing an employment relationship. The court also could not consider factual material outside the complaint, including MMNA’s assertion that its human-resources files contained no record of Nelson.

Nelson’s opposition brief contained additional allegations that MMNA provided training, certified and paid him, tracked vehicle sales through an intranet, determined dealer locations, and set sales goals. The court did not consider those allegations because a motion to dismiss generally must be decided from the complaint and documents attached to or incorporated into it, not from new facts supplied in a brief.

Disposition

The court held that the complaint did not allege facts showing an employment relationship between Nelson and MMNA. Because Nelson was proceeding without a lawyer and the complaint suggested that a valid claim might be stated through additional facts, the court allowed him an opportunity to amend.

MMNA’s motion to dismiss was GRANTED without prejudice to Plaintiff’s filing an amended complaint. Nelson could file an amended complaint against MMNA by April 16, 2020. The court did not decide whether Nelson’s Title VII and Age Discrimination in Employment Act claims also failed because his administrative discrimination charge did not name MMNA. This order addressed MMNA’s motion and did not dispose of Nelson’s claims against the remaining defendants.