Moazzaz v. MetLife, Inc.

Background

Mona Moazzaz sued MetLife, Inc., Michel Khalaf, Steven Kandarian, Frans Hijkoop, Susan Podlogar, and Gary Hediger. She alleged that MetLife, Khalaf, Kandarian, and Podlogar violated the federal Equal Pay Act and New York Equal Pay Act by paying her less in salary, bonuses, and other compensation than nine similarly situated men. She also alleged that all defendants violated the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law through gender discrimination and retaliation.

Moazzaz alleged that she held senior roles at MetLife, managed 1,500 employees and contractors, oversaw projects worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and was paid between $105,000 and $525,000 less than male colleagues. She identified Ed Spehar, Steve Weinreb, and Greg Baxter as comparators whose duties allegedly overlapped substantially with hers. She also described gender-related comments, investigations into her conduct, a denied promotion, and her termination without notice shortly after Khalaf became chief executive officer.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that Moazzaz had not adequately pleaded her pay, hostile-work-environment, promotion, termination, retaliation, or individual-liability claims.

Pay-discrimination claims

The court denied dismissal of the federal Equal Pay Act, New York Equal Pay Act, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law pay-discrimination claims. At the pleading stage, the court concluded that Moazzaz plausibly alleged that her proposed comparators worked within the same establishment because MetLife centrally controlled and administered the leadership positions, even when some employees worked abroad.

The court also concluded that Moazzaz adequately alleged substantially equal work. She described overlapping duties and reporting relationships involving Spehar and Weinreb, and alleged that Baxter’s Chief Digital Officer position was part of the Global Head of Digital Strategy role that she had previously held on an interim basis. The court rejected the argument that her greater responsibilities defeated her Equal Pay Act claims, explaining that a supervisor may perform substantially equal work while also performing additional work.

Hostile work environment

The court denied dismissal of Moazzaz’s hostile-work-environment claims under the New York State and New York City human-rights laws. The allegations included references to her as a “bitch,” instructions that she be “nicer,” comments about her appearance, criticism of her “tone,” and two investigations into her conduct. The court also considered allegations concerning gender-based treatment of other women and the removal of a mural about advancing women.

The court stated that the New York State claim required conduct that was objectively severe or pervasive, while the New York City law applied a more permissive standard requiring differential treatment because of discriminatory intent. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the court found that the allegations were sufficient to proceed beyond the pleading stage.

Failure to promote and termination

The court denied dismissal of Moazzaz’s discriminatory failure-to-promote claim. It found that the stated reasons that she was “too mean, condescending and shouts,” together with the instruction that she be “nicer,” her strong performance history, and the alleged gender-based conduct by human-resources personnel, plausibly supported an inference that gender was a motivating factor.

The court also denied dismissal of her discriminatory-termination claim. It acknowledged that the complaint provided few details about the termination and did not state MetLife’s rationale. Nevertheless, the court concluded that the allegations supporting the hostile-work-environment claim, along with the timing and circumstances of the termination, were enough at this stage to support an inference of discriminatory motive.

Retaliation claims

The court dismissed Moazzaz’s retaliation claims under the New York State and New York City human-rights laws. It concluded that some of the conduct she identified—such as raising concerns about diversity—was not specific enough to constitute protected activity because a lack of diversity alone was not unlawful discrimination.

The court determined that her November 2017 complaint about not being promoted and her June 2018 statement about a male subordinate’s alleged treatment of African American employees could plausibly constitute protected activity. But it found no sufficient causal connection between those statements and the later employment decisions. The three-month gap between the November complaint and the failure to promote was insufficient by itself, and the eleven-month gap between the June statement and termination was too remote under the allegations presented. The retaliation claims were therefore dismissed.

Individual defendants

The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the individual defendants were insufficiently involved. For the Equal Pay Act and its state analogue, the court concluded that Khalaf, Kandarian, and Podlogar were plausibly alleged to have had substantial authority over personnel and compensation matters. For the New York State and New York City human-rights claims, the court concluded that individuals could be liable for their own discriminatory conduct, aiding or encouraging discrimination, or retaliation. The claims against all defendants could proceed to discovery at this stage.

Disposition

Judge Oetken granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The retaliation claims were dismissed. The pay-discrimination, hostile-work-environment, discriminatory-failure-to-promote, and discriminatory-termination claims survived, and the defendants were ordered to answer the remaining claims within 21 days.