Joyce v. Remark Holdings, Inc.

Background

Danielle Joyce worked for Bikini.com LLC, a subsidiary of Remark Holdings, Inc., from March 2017 until January 2019. She worked remotely from her home in Manhattan. Kai-Shing Tao was Remark’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and Shannon Follansbee was Remark’s Human Resources Executive.

Joyce brought claims alleging a hostile work environment and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York City Human Rights Law. She also asserted slander and tortious-interference claims against Follansbee. The defendants moved for partial summary judgment, a procedure that resolves claims when the record shows no genuine dispute over a fact important to the result. They did not seek judgment on the hostile-work-environment claims except for the claim against Tao. Joyce did not oppose dismissal of the slander and tortious-interference claims.

Retaliation claims

Joyce identified three events that she argued were protected activity—conduct opposing unlawful employment discrimination. First, she told Follansbee what a model had said about alleged sexual misconduct by a member of Remark’s board. The court held that sharing that information was not a complaint or protest about conduct at Joyce’s workplace and could not reasonably have been understood as opposition to conduct prohibited by Title VII.

Second, Joyce complained to Tao about the way Follansbee had expressed advice concerning workplace misconduct. The court held that this was a complaint about how an executive expressed herself, not a complaint that could reasonably have been understood as opposing unlawful employment discrimination.

Third, Joyce disputed with the Vice President of Digital Marketing whether he had to report statements that Follansbee had allegedly made about why Joyce was hired. The court held that this dispute about reporting obligations likewise could not reasonably have been understood as opposition to conduct prohibited by Title VII or the New York City Human Rights Law.

The court added that, even if any of the three events had been protected activity, Joyce had not shown the required causal connection between those events and the alleged retaliation. Her termination occurred about six months after the latest event, and the earlier events occurred more than a year before her termination. The court also found that the reassignment or reduction of her job duties was not shown to have been retaliation because Joyce had asked that some duties be removed after she felt overworked.

For similar reasons, the court granted the defendants summary judgment on Joyce’s retaliation claim under the New York City Human Rights Law. Although that law uses a broader standard, the court held that Joyce could not show that she opposed unlawful discrimination or that the defendants took action because of such opposition.

Hostile-work-environment claim against Tao

The court granted summary judgment on Joyce’s New York City Human Rights Law hostile-work-environment claim against Tao. Joyce relied on Tao’s reaction to allegations involving the board member, statements that he considered the board member a friend and had not brought him “girls,” and an incident in which Tao made Joyce take a mixed drink at a company event.

The court held that Tao’s failure to take a more active role in addressing the allegations did not constitute unlawful discrimination against Joyce. It also held that the single drinking incident did not support a claim because Joyce offered no evidence that Tao pressured female employees specifically or disproportionately to consume alcohol. The court noted that Joyce worked remotely and that Tao did not supervise her work.

Joyce also argued that Tao aided and abetted a hostile work environment based primarily on Follansbee’s conduct. The court declined to consider that theory because Joyce raised it for the first time in opposition to summary judgment. The court further stated that the theory would fail on the merits because Joyce had not shown that Tao was aware of misconduct he was required to investigate or correct.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment. The conclusion states: “All claims against Kai-Shing Tao and all retaliation claims are dismissed.” The opinion does not separately state a disposition in the conclusion for the slander and tortious-interference claims, although it records that Joyce did not oppose their dismissal. The hostile-work-environment claims against Follansbee were not among the claims addressed by the motion.