Lora v. Centralized Management Service

Background

Tishaily Lora sued Centralized Management Service, Inc. (CMS), American Transit Host Corp., Wholesale Fuel Distributors, Inc., Fuelco Distributors, LLC, Food Smart, Inc., unidentified defendants, and unidentified corporations. She alleged that she worked as an Executive/Administrative Assistant for CMS and the other named entities from July 2017 until her employment ended in November 2017. She alleged sexual harassment and gender discrimination by Sammy Eljamal, whom she described as CMS’s owner and/or a senior-management employee, and alleged that she was fired in retaliation for complaining about the harassment.

Lora asserted 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. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that they were not qualifying employers under Title VII and that American Transit, Wholesale Fuel Distributors, Fuelco, and Food Smart were not Lora’s employers under state or city law.

Materials Considered

The court declined to consider affidavits, payroll records, and other materials submitted with the motion because they were not incorporated into the amended complaint and were not integral to it. The court also declined to convert the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment, noting that discovery might support Lora’s position concerning Title VII’s employee-number requirement.

Title VII Employer Requirement

Title VII generally applies only to an employer with at least 15 employees for each working day in 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding year. The court explained that this requirement is an element of a Title VII claim, rather than a jurisdictional requirement, and that a complaint must plausibly allege facts showing that the employer meets it.

The court held that Lora’s amended complaint did not plausibly allege that any defendant met the 15-employee threshold. Although she alleged that she worked for CMS, American Transit, Wholesale Fuel Distributors, Fuelco, and Food Smart, she provided no allegation about the number of employees employed by those entities, either separately or collectively. The court therefore granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the Title VII claims. The dismissal was without prejudice, and Lora was granted leave to file a second amended complaint attempting in good faith to correct the pleading defect.

New York State and New York City Claims

American Transit, Wholesale Fuel Distributors, Fuelco, and Food Smart—the non-CMS entities—also moved to dismiss Lora’s claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law on the ground that they were not her employers. CMS did not challenge its status as Lora’s employer under those laws.

The court explained that, when a plaintiff claims that entities other than the direct employer are responsible, the complaint must plausibly allege that the entities are sufficiently integrated to be treated as a single employer. Relevant factors include interrelated operations, centralized control of labor relations, common management, and common ownership or financial control.

The court held that Lora’s allegations were insufficient. Apart from alleging that she worked for all the defendants collectively under the name “CMS,” she alleged only that the entities shared an address. The court concluded that this did not plausibly show that the non-CMS entities were her employers or that the entities qualified as a single employer. It therefore granted the non-CMS entities’ motion to dismiss the state and city claims. Those dismissals were without prejudice, and Lora was granted leave to replead facts supporting employer status under the state and city laws.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint and allowed Lora to file a second amended complaint by August 12, 2020. Defendants were directed to answer or otherwise respond by September 11, 2020. The court stated that failure to file the second amended complaint on time, without good cause, would result in dismissal with prejudice of the Title VII claims and dismissal without prejudice of the state-law claims, including those against CMS, so that they could be refiled in state court. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 26.