Farmer v. Shake Shack Enterprises, LLC

Background

Dawashia Farmer alleged that she worked as a team member for Shake Shack Enterprises, LLC and Shake Shack 152 E 86 LLC, which she claimed were joint employers. She alleged that she told manager Damon Cordova and others that she was pregnant in late November 2018. According to the amended complaint, managers questioned whether her pregnancy would interfere with her work, suggested that she apply for short-term disability, questioned her ability to lift and restock, demanded documentation proving her pregnancy, and fired her on approximately January 5, 2019.

Farmer 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 for sex and pregnancy discrimination, race discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment. She also brought state and city claims that Cordova aided and abetted discrimination and retaliation. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Employment Relationship

The court held that Farmer plausibly alleged that she was an employee of Shake Shack Enterprises and that Shake Shack Enterprises and Shake Shack 152 E 86 LLC operated as joint employers. The amended complaint alleged that the entities shared management, a principal place of business, ownership and operation of the restaurant, and responsibility for hiring, firing, discipline, pay, insurance, records, and supervision. Those allegations were sufficient at the pleading stage for all of Farmer’s claims.

Sex and Pregnancy Discrimination

The court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss Farmer’s sex-discrimination claims under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Pregnancy discrimination is a form of sex discrimination under Title VII. The court found that Farmer plausibly alleged that her termination was motivated at least in part by her pregnancy, based on the timing of her disclosure, managers’ comments and actions concerning her pregnancy and ability to work, the demand for pregnancy documentation, and her termination shortly afterward.

Race Discrimination

The court granted the motion to dismiss all of Farmer’s race-discrimination claims under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The court found that the amended complaint did not plausibly connect Farmer’s termination to racial bias. It relied on the absence of racially charged comments or allegations comparing her treatment with that of white employees, and held that Farmer’s subjective belief and allegations that other African American employees were later fired or treated adversely were not enough.

Retaliation

The court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss Farmer’s retaliation claims under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The court held that Farmer plausibly alleged protected activity by requesting a change in work location because of conditions related to her pregnancy and by telling a manager that another manager was treating her differently because of her pregnancy. The close timing between those complaints, subsequent criticism of her work, and her termination plausibly supported a causal connection.

Hostile Work Environment

The court granted the motion to dismiss Farmer’s hostile-work-environment claims under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law. Although the court accepted that Farmer experienced the conduct as hostile, it held that the alleged comments, questioning, requests for pregnancy documentation, criticism concerning restroom use, and related conduct were not objectively severe or pervasive enough to create a legally actionable hostile work environment.

Aiding and Abetting

The court denied the motion to dismiss Farmer’s New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law aiding-and-abetting claims against Cordova to the extent they concerned sex discrimination and retaliation. The court held that the amended complaint plausibly alleged that Cordova actually participated in conduct supporting the surviving claims and that the Shake Shack entities could be liable for that conduct. The court granted dismissal of aiding-and-abetting claims tied to race discrimination and hostile work environment because those underlying claims did not survive.

Disposition

Judge Engelmayer granted defendants’ motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. The court denied the motion to dismiss Farmer’s sex-discrimination and retaliation claims and the related aiding-and-abetting claims against Cordova. It granted the motion as to all other claims. The opinion did not state that any claim was dismissed with or without prejudice.