Delgado v. Donald J. Trump For President, Inc.

Background

Arlene Delgado brought an employment-discrimination action against Donald J. Trump For President, Inc., Trump For America, Inc., Sean Spicer, Reince Priebus, and Stephen Bannon. She alleged violations of the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law, along with claims for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and tortious interference with prospective business relations.

According to the complaint, Delgado became pregnant while working on the campaign and informed Bannon and Spicer. She alleged that Spicer told her the White House was no place for a new mother and that working there while raising a baby would be impossible. She further alleged that Bannon, Spicer, and Priebus stripped her of her campaign responsibilities after she announced her pregnancy and that she was unlawfully denied employment because she was pregnant. The court treated the complaint’s factual allegations as true for purposes of deciding the dismissal motion. Bannon had not appeared in the action, and the other defendants brought the motions addressed in this order.

Failure-to-Hire Claim

The defendants moved to dismiss a purported failure-to-hire claim under the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws for failure to state a claim. Delgado repeatedly stated that she was not asserting a failure-to-hire claim against the federal government or otherwise. The court therefore denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss that nonexistent claim. The court also cautioned defense counsel against presenting frivolous arguments and conduct suggesting sharp practice.

Tortious Interference

Delgado alleged that the defendants interfered with her efforts to obtain employment at the White House. The defendants argued that federal law made Title VII the exclusive remedy for federal employees asserting employment discrimination, but the court rejected that argument because Delgado was not a federal employee. The defendants also argued that Spicer and Priebus could not be considered separate from the White House because they later worked there. The court rejected that argument, explaining that the alleged interference occurred before they joined the White House staff.

The court nevertheless held that Delgado had not adequately alleged that the defendants directed their conduct toward her prospective employer, the federal government. Under New York law, conduct supporting a claim for interference with prospective business relations must be directed at the party with whom the plaintiff has or seeks a relationship, rather than at the plaintiff herself. The court granted the motion to dismiss this claim without prejudice to Delgado filing an amended complaint.

Arbitration Motions

The defendants moved to compel arbitration of Delgado’s claims under an undated nondisclosure agreement. Delgado cross-moved for a preliminary injunction—an order temporarily stopping conduct—to prevent arbitration. She later informed the court that the arbitration had concluded, withdrew that motion, and argued that the arbitrator’s decision affected the defendants’ claims in the federal case. She also requested a permanent injunction and other relief concerning the agreement.

Because the arbitration had concluded, the court ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing on the arbitration issue. It directed the defendants to file a supplemental motion to compel and Delgado to file a motion for a permanent injunction by April 16, 2021, with opposition papers due April 30 and replies due May 7. The court also directed Delgado to file any proceeding to confirm an arbitration award as a separate action.

Disposition

Judge Analisa Torres concluded that the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint was granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the court denied dismissal of the purported failure-to-hire claim and granted dismissal of the tortious-interference claim without prejudice to an amended complaint. The court denied the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration without prejudice to renewal in supplemental briefing and denied Delgado’s cross-motion to enjoin arbitration as moot. The order allowed Delgado to file an amended complaint by April 9, 2021.

Classification

This is a procedural order because the court ruled on motions to dismiss claims for failure to state a claim and on arbitration-related motions, without deciding the merits of Delgado’s pregnancy-discrimination allegations.