Deveaux v. Skechers USA, Inc.

Background

Qynasa Deveaux alleged that Skechers and three supervisors—Brandon Richardson, Troy Burks, and Wilmer Sanchez-Reyes—discriminated against her because she was pregnant and retaliated against her after she complained. She brought claims 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. She also brought aiding-and-abetting claims under the two New York laws.

According to the complaint, Deveaux told Burks in September 2018 that she was pregnant and asked not to work after midnight because pregnancy-related swollen ankles made walking home difficult. After she complained to Skechers's corporate hotline and spoke with a district manager, her hours allegedly fell from about 40 hours every two weeks to 25 hours every two weeks. She later received no work for a period in January 2019. The complaint also described restrictions on her breaks, interruptions while using the restroom, and other conduct by the supervisors.

Court's analysis

The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. For this motion, the court accepted the complaint's factual allegations as true and drew reasonable inferences in Deveaux's favor.

For the Title VII and New York State discrimination claims, the court held that the alleged reduction in hours was an adverse employment action—a materially harmful change in employment conditions. Deveaux therefore pleaded enough facts to proceed with those discrimination claims against Skechers. The court found that she had not alleged that the individual defendants participated in the decision to reduce her hours, so they could not be held liable for that decision under the New York State law. The other conduct involving the individual defendants did not qualify as an adverse employment action under Title VII or the New York State law.

The New York City law applies a broader standard and does not require an adverse employment action. The court allowed the New York City discrimination claim concerning reduced hours to proceed against Skechers. It also allowed claims against the individual defendants concerning delayed breaks, Burks's refusal to adjust Deveaux's schedule, and Sanchez-Reyes's interference with her restroom use. The court dismissed the other New York City discrimination allegations against the individual defendants.

For retaliation under Title VII and the New York State law, the court held that reducing Deveaux's hours and later removing her from the work calendar could constitute actions that might deter a reasonable worker from complaining about discrimination. Those retaliation claims proceeded against Skechers. They did not proceed against the individual defendants because the complaint did not allege that they participated in the decisions to reduce her hours or remove her from the calendar. The court likewise allowed the New York City retaliation claim to proceed against Skechers but dismissed it as to the individual defendants.

The court did not address constructive-discharge or hostile-workplace claims that Deveaux raised for the first time in her opposition to the motion, because those claims were not included in the complaint.

Disposition

The court granted the January 15, 2020 motion to dismiss in part. All claims against Skechers concerning its decision to reduce Deveaux's hours remained. The claims against the individual defendants were dismissed, except that the motion to dismiss was denied as to the New York City discrimination claims against the individual defendants for delaying Deveaux's breaks, against Burks for refusing to adjust her work schedule, and against Sanchez-Reyes for interfering with her restroom use. The opinion does not add a with-prejudice or without-prejudice designation.