Jamiel v. Maison Kayser@USA.com

Background

Akeel Abdul Jamiel, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Abel Viveros, Gabriela de la Vega, Julian Ramirez, Ana Ledsman, Jennifer Villemin, Yann Ledoux, and Breadroll Inc. The opinion explains that Jamiel referred to his former employer as “Maison Kayser” in his pleadings, although the defendants identified the employer as Breadroll Inc.

Jamiel alleged that he was hired as a baker on May 27, 2018, under Viveros’s supervision. He claimed that Viveros and colleagues made racist statements after learning that Jamiel was not of Spanish descent, that managers did not adequately respond to his complaints, and that Viveros retaliated by throwing away his lunches and calling him a “snitch.” Jamiel also alleged that Viveros spread rumors that he was gay and directed anti-gay comments and slurs toward him. He further alleged that managers and some individual defendants interfered with his pay and that he was fired in June 2019.

Jamiel asserted workplace-discrimination and hostile-work-environment 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. He also asserted wage claims and a defamation claim against Viveros based on statements about Jamiel’s sexuality.

Procedural History and Standard

The defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Magistrate Judge Aaron recommended dismissing the Title VII claims against the individual defendants, the defamation claim against Viveros, and the overtime-based wage claims. Jamiel filed objections.

The district court found that Jamiel’s objections were perfunctory because they largely repeated his earlier arguments. The court therefore reviewed the challenged portions of the recommendation for clear error, adopted the Report and Recommendation, and overruled the objections.

Rulings

Title VII claims against individual defendants. The court granted the motion as to Jamiel’s Title VII claims against Viveros, de la Vega, Ramirez, Ledsman, Villemin, and Ledoux. It held that, under Second Circuit law discussed in the opinion, Title VII does not allow a plaintiff to sue individuals.

The defendants also argued that Jamiel failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The court rejected that argument without prejudice because failure to exhaust was not clear from the face of the complaint.

Hostile-work-environment claim against Breadroll Inc. The court denied the motion as to Jamiel’s Title VII hostile-work-environment claim against Breadroll Inc. The court concluded that the alleged repetitive and derogatory comments could be viewed by a reasonable person as pervasive and abusive, and that Jamiel sufficiently alleged that he personally experienced the conduct as discriminatory and hostile.

The court also denied the motion as to Jamiel’s claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. It stated that the New York State law uses the same standard applied to the Title VII hostile-work-environment claim, while the New York City law uses a broader standard focused on whether the plaintiff was treated less well because of discriminatory intent.

Defamation claim. The court dismissed Jamiel’s defamation claim against Viveros. It explained that Jamiel did not allege special damages and that, under the New York law discussed in the opinion, statements about homosexuality were not defamation per se—the category of statements for which special damages are not required.

Wage claim. The court dismissed the wage claim. Regarding the overtime claim, the court explained that a complaint must provide enough detail about the length and frequency of unpaid work to support a reasonable inference that the plaintiff worked more than 40 hours in a week. The court found that Jamiel did not allege how many hours he worked or how many hours went unpaid.

Leave to amend and disposition. The court granted Jamiel leave to file a letter motion within 30 days, attaching a proposed amended complaint, concerning the defamation and wage claims. In its conclusion, the court stated that the defendants’ motion was “GRANTED in part” and dismissed Jamiel’s Title VII claims against the individual defendants, his defamation claim, and his wage claim; the motion was also “DENIED in part” as to the claims that the court allowed to continue.

Bottom Line

This was a partial ruling on a motion to dismiss, not a final decision on whether Jamiel ultimately would win the surviving discrimination claims. The court allowed some claims to proceed while dismissing others and permitted Jamiel to seek amendment of the defamation and wage claims.