Roenick v. Flood

Background

Jeremy Roenick, a former professional hockey player and NBC Sports studio analyst, sued his former boss, Sam Flood, and NBC-affiliated entities after NBC suspended and fired him. The alleged basis for the firing was Roenick’s appearance on a podcast in which he described jokingly implying that he had sexual relations with his wife and NBC coworker Kathryn Tappen. Roenick alleged that his termination was motivated by his sex and sexual orientation and occurred shortly after he complained about statements Flood allegedly made to Tappen.

Roenick’s complaint asserted claims for breach of contract; sex and sexual-orientation discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law; hostile work environment; retaliation; aiding and abetting; and discrimination for engaging in political activities under the New York Labor Law. He had already voluntarily dismissed his claims for breach of express oral contract and breach of implied-in-fact contract.

Motion to dismiss

The defendants moved under Rule 12(b)(6), which asks whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. Roenick did not oppose dismissal of his hostile-work-environment claims, his political-activity claim, or all claims against NBC Sports Network and Comcast.

The court dismissed the New York State and New York City discrimination claims. It concluded that Roenick had not alleged facts plausibly connecting his termination to his sex or sexual orientation. The court found that Lipinski and Weir were not shown to have engaged in conduct comparable in seriousness to Roenick’s podcast comments. It also found that Flood’s alleged statement that Weir “is gay and can say whatever,” made about two years before Roenick’s termination and not about Roenick or heterosexual men, was too remote and unrelated to support an inference of discriminatory intent.

The court dismissed the New York State and New York City hostile-work-environment claims and the New York Labor Law political-activity claim because Roenick did not oppose dismissal of those claims. Because the underlying discrimination and hostile-work-environment claims were dismissed, the court also dismissed aiding-and-abetting claims based on those theories.

The court reached a different result on aiding and abetting retaliation. It held that the complaint sufficiently alleged that NBC retaliated against Roenick after he complained to Flood about allegedly discriminatory and harassing statements toward Tappen, and that Flood aided and abetted that retaliation. The court therefore denied the motion to dismiss the New York State and New York City aiding-and-abetting retaliation claims.

Other defendants and disposition

The court dismissed all claims against NBC Sports Network and Comcast because Roenick did not oppose their dismissal. The court did not immediately dismiss NBC Sports Group. Instead, because the defendants submitted a declaration stating that NBC Sports Group was a division rather than a separate corporate entity, the court ordered Roenick within one week either to voluntarily dismiss NBC Sports Group or to show why all claims against it should not be dismissed.

The court stated that the remaining causes of action were breach of contract, retaliation under the New York State Human Rights Law, retaliation under the New York City Human Rights Law, and aiding and abetting retaliation under both laws. It ordered discovery to proceed under the existing scheduling order.

Result

The defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. The court dismissed the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Twelfth Causes of Action, as well as all claims against NBC Sports Network and Comcast. The aiding-and-abetting retaliation claims remained, and the contract and retaliation claims not challenged by the motion also remained.