Sanderson v. Leg Apparel LLC

Background

Aftern Sanderson, who was representing himself, alleged that the defendants discriminated against him because of his race and perceived sexual orientation. In an earlier round of the case, the court dismissed his claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress and for a gender-based hostile work environment, while allowing most other claims to proceed. The court allowed him to replead the dismissed claims.

Sanderson’s new allegations included comments by Melissa Romanino about his having a boyfriend, additional assertions about his termination, and statements that defendants made in proceedings before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the New York State Division of Human Rights. He also sought permission to add a defamation claim based on those agency statements and to add Daytona Apparel Group as a defendant because he believed Daytona was Leg Apparel’s successor in interest.

Motion to Dismiss

The court applied the standard for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Under that standard, the court accepted well-pleaded factual allegations as true and drew reasonable inferences for Sanderson, but it did not accept unsupported legal conclusions.

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

The court held that Sanderson’s amended allegations still did not state a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress under New York law. His allegations concerning defendants’ statements in the agency proceedings could not support the claim because statements material and pertinent to those proceedings are protected by absolute privilege. His allegation that defendants negligently terminated him and should have foreseen emotional distress was only a legal conclusion, not a factual allegation supplying the missing elements of the claim.

The court therefore granted defendants’ motion to dismiss this claim.

Gender-Based Hostile Work Environment

For the Title VII and New York State Human Rights Law claims, the court applied the requirement that the alleged conduct be objectively severe or pervasive. It concluded that the three comments about Sanderson having a boyfriend, even considered with the added allegations, were not severe enough or frequent enough to create an objectively hostile work environment. The added statements that defendants’ conduct was offensive, altered employment conditions, or was severe or pervasive were treated as legal conclusions rather than additional facts.

The court therefore granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the gender-based hostile-work-environment claims under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law.

For the New York City Human Rights Law claim, the court applied the more lenient standard requiring a plaintiff to allege that he was treated less well because of a protected characteristic. The court found that Sanderson plausibly alleged that Romanino, his supervisor, made three comments about his perceived sexual orientation intending to embarrass him, including comments made immediately after a successful client call that could have been intended to diminish his success.

The court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the gender-based hostile-work-environment claim under the New York City Human Rights Law. The court also explained that defendants’ argument that the comments were only “petty slights and trivial inconveniences” was an affirmative defense that could be raised at summary judgment or trial, but not resolved on this motion to dismiss.

Request to Add a Defamation Claim

The court denied Sanderson’s motion for leave to amend to add a defamation claim. It held that the proposed claim was futile for two independent reasons. First, the alleged statements were made between September 2017 and April 2018, and the court concluded that the one-year limitations period for defamation had expired by the time Sanderson filed this action in September 2019. Second, the statements were made during the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and New York State Division of Human Rights proceedings and were absolutely privileged, so they could not support a defamation claim.

Request to Add Daytona Apparel Group

The court construed Sanderson’s request for more time to join another party as a request for leave to amend the complaint to add Daytona Apparel Group. Although the deadline in the case-management plan had passed, the court found good cause because Sanderson stated that he had only recently learned information suggesting that Daytona might be Leg Apparel’s successor in interest. The court also considered his efforts to contact defendants and his status as a self-represented litigant.

The court concluded that adding Daytona was not shown to be futile, unduly prejudicial, or speculative on the record before it. Defendants had not shown substantial prejudice, and the proposed amendment would add Daytona as an alleged successor in interest rather than allege that Daytona participated in the underlying conduct.

The court therefore granted Sanderson’s motion for leave to amend to add Daytona Apparel Group as a defendant. It directed him to file a Third Amended Complaint within three weeks. The court stated that the Third Amended Complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the existing complaint, so any facts or claims Sanderson wished to maintain had to be included in it.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the repleaded claims, except that it denied the motion as to the gender-based hostile-work-environment claim under the New York City Human Rights Law. The negligent-infliction claim and the gender-based hostile-work-environment claims under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law were dismissed. Sanderson’s motion to add a defamation claim was denied, and his motion to add Daytona Apparel Group as a defendant was granted. Judge Gregory H. Woods did not state that any of these rulings was with or without prejudice.