Gavel v. Wow Payments LLC
- Lewis Liman
- 1:20-cv-03475
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Gavel v. WOW Payments LLC, Judge Liman granted default judgment on three claims and denied it on two.
The ruling directly affected Holly Gavel and Kofi Korang. Gavel obtained default on her New York City Human Rights Law, assault, and battery claims, while her Employers Liability Act and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims against Korang did not receive default judgment. The case continued as to the remaining parties.
What happened
Holly Gavel sued WOW Payments LLC, Eugene Gold, and Kofi Korang, alleging that Korang sexually harassed her while she worked for WOW Payments. Her claims included violations of the New York City Human Rights Law, an Employers Liability Act claim, assault, battery, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Gavel asked the court to enter a default judgment against Korang. The court granted the request for the New York City Human Rights Law, assault, and battery claims, but denied it for the Employers Liability Act and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims. The court said Gavel had not alleged that Korang was her employer, and had not alleged the special duty required for her negligence-based emotional-distress claim.
Judge Lewis J. Liman entered default against Korang on the New York City Human Rights Law, assault, and battery claims and sent the question of damages to Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman. The case was not closed, and the remaining parties were ordered to appear by telephone for a conference.
The detailed version
- Gavel v. Wow Payments LLC · No. 1:20-cv-03475
- Lewis Liman
- Oct. 15, 2020
Background
Holly Gavel brought claims against WOW Payments LLC, Eugene Gold, and Kofi Korang. She alleged that Korang sexually harassed her while she was employed by WOW Payments. The claims were brought under the New York City Human Rights Law and the New York Employers Liability Act, along with claims for civil assault, battery, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Motion and Analysis
Gavel moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) for a default judgment against Korang. The motion was unopposed.
The court granted the motion as to the New York City Human Rights Law, assault, and battery claims. It denied the motion as to the New York Employers Liability Act claim because Gavel had not alleged that Korang was her employer, while the statutory language she provided referred to recovery against an employer rather than an employee.
The court also denied the motion as to negligent infliction of emotional distress. It explained that such a claim may proceed under a bystander theory or a direct-duty theory, and that New York courts also recognize a special-circumstances theory. The court found the bystander and special-circumstances theories inapplicable. It further found that Gavel had not alleged that Korang owed her the special duty required under the direct-duty theory. In addition, the alleged conduct was intentional and deliberate, and therefore outside the scope of actionable negligence.
Order
The court ordered that default be entered against Korang on Gavel’s New York City Human Rights Law, assault, and battery claims. It referred the case to Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman for an inquiry into damages. The remaining parties were directed to appear by telephone for a conference on December 3, 2020, and the clerk was directed to close the motion docket entry but not the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.