Van Soeren v. Disney Streaming Service

Background

Steven Van Soeren alleged that he worked as a male product designer for Disney Streaming Service from August 2016 until May 2019. He alleged that supervisors and coworkers harassed him, made comments about his future child, treated him differently because of his wife’s pregnancy, and that he was terminated without cause or severance. The complaint also alleged that he took two weeks of paternity leave after his child was born and that a coworker made comments about stillbirth and improperly developed fetuses after his return.

Van Soeren asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act; the New York State Human Rights Law; the New York City Human Rights Law; and the Family and Medical Leave Act. He also asserted claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent supervision under New York law. Disney Streaming Service moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim.

Court’s Analysis

The court dismissed the Title VII pregnancy-discrimination claim. It explained that Title VII and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act protect a pregnant employee, but do not protect an employee based on the pregnancy of the employee’s spouse or on familial status alone. The court also considered the possible “sex plus” theory, under which sex combined with another characteristic can identify a protected group. It found Van Soeren’s allegations about better treatment of pregnant female employees too general because he did not identify specific comparators or explain their positions, conduct, or treatment.

The court concluded that the New York City Human Rights Law claim also failed under the same analysis and noted that Van Soeren did not oppose dismissal of that claim. The court dismissed the Family and Medical Leave Act claim because an interference claim requires an allegation that the employer denied or interfered with a benefit protected by that law, while Van Soeren alleged that he took paternity leave without incident. The court also noted that he did not bring a separate Family and Medical Leave Act retaliation claim and had not alleged that his termination resulted from his leave.

Disposition

Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald dismissed the Title VII and Family and Medical Leave Act claims for failure to state a claim and dismissed the New York City Human Rights Law claim. Because the federal claims were dismissed, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the federal court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—over the remaining New York State Human Rights Law and tort claims. The court therefore dismissed the complaint in its entirety and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motions. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.