Padilla v. Sacks and Sacks, LLP

Background

Lisa J. Padilla sued Sacks and Sacks, LLP, Kenneth Sacks, Evan Sacks, and Devon Reiff. She alleged sexual harassment and discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation, retaliation, wrongful discharge, and intentional infliction of emotional distress under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, New York statutes, New York City law, and New York common law. The opinion states that Padilla worked as a paralegal at Sacks and Sacks, LLP from April 2012 through July 16, 2018. She alleged that attorneys made persistent, unwanted sexual comments and questions, that she complained about the conduct, and that the defendants retaliated by, among other things, withdrawing legal representation in an ongoing tort case, separating her from other employees, and terminating her employment.

Motion to Dismiss

The defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. They sought dismissal of Counts I and II—the Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims—as to Kenneth Sacks, Evan Sacks, and Devon Reiff. They also sought dismissal of Count VI, the intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim, as to all defendants.

Title VII Claims Against Individual Defendants

The court held that Title VII does not impose personal liability on individual defendants. Relying on Second Circuit precedent, the court stated that individuals are not subject to liability under Title VII, including individuals who own the employer. The court therefore dismissed Padilla’s Title VII claims against Kenneth Sacks, Evan Sacks, and Devon Reiff.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Under New York law, an intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim requires extreme and outrageous conduct, an intent to cause or reckless disregard for the risk of severe emotional distress, a causal connection, and severe emotional distress. The court described this as a strict and difficult standard. It concluded that the alleged questions about Padilla’s sexual practices, “kinky behavior,” sexually suggestive photographs, lesbian bars, and appearance were improper but did not rise to the required level of extreme and outrageous conduct. The court contrasted the allegations with a case involving sexual assault, physical intimidation, and explicit requests for sexual conduct. It dismissed Count VI in its entirety.

Disposition

Judge George B. Daniels granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Counts I and II were dismissed against Kenneth Sacks, Evan Sacks, and Devon Reiff. Count VI was dismissed in its entirety. The opinion does not state what happened to the other claims in the complaint.