Pizarro v. Euros El Tina Restaurant Lounge and Billiards Corp.

Background

Maria Pizarro brought claims against Euros El Tina Restaurant Lounge and Billiards Corp., where she had been employed as general manager, and against Santiago Quezada Sr. and Santiago Quezada Jr., whom the opinion identifies as principals of Euros El Tina. She alleged sex-based discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, along with claims under New York State and New York City law. The defendants moved to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and on failure-to-state-a-claim grounds under Rule 12(b)(6).

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

The defendants argued that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because Euros El Tina did not qualify as an “employer” under Title VII and Pizarro therefore was not an “employee” covered by that law. The court rejected that argument. It explained that Title VII’s employee-numerosity requirement concerns whether the claim is legally adequate, not whether the federal court has jurisdiction. The court likewise treated the argument about Pizarro’s employee status as a merits-related issue rather than a jurisdictional one. The Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction was denied.

Claims Dismissed Under Rule 12(b)(6)

The court dismissed Pizarro’s religious-discrimination claims. The complaint alleged that Quezada threw her Bible in the garbage and called it “bad luck,” but it did not allege an employment requirement that conflicted with a religious belief. The court also held that the single alleged religion-based incident was insufficient to establish a religiously hostile work environment.

The court dismissed the Title VII claims against the individual defendants because, under Second Circuit law cited in the opinion, individual supervisors cannot be held liable under Title VII. The court noted that individuals may be liable under the New York Human Rights Law, but that issue did not prevent dismissal of the Title VII claims against them.

The court dismissed Counts I and II, which were based on 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Section 1981 provides a claim for race-based discrimination, and the court found that Pizarro did not allege race-based discrimination.

Claims Allowed to Continue

The court declined to dismiss the claims as untimely. Pizarro alleged that sexual harassment continued throughout her employment and until her termination, and she gave examples of the alleged conduct. The court also stated that the defendants had not established the two required elements of a laches defense: lack of diligence by Pizarro and prejudice to the defendants.

The court also declined to dismiss for failure to allege Title VII’s employee-numerosity requirement. The complaint alleged that Euros employed more than four employees, while the related Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint stated that it had 15 to 100 employees. The court found those statements not inconsistent at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

Finally, the court held that Pizarro’s multiple allegations of harassment were sufficient to raise a factual question about whether a hostile work environment existed. It declined to resolve the defendants’ argument that Pizarro failed to use available corrective opportunities because that argument involved an affirmative defense and factual questions not suitable for resolution on a motion to dismiss.

Disposition

Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein denied the motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. He granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim: the religious-discrimination claims, the Title VII claims against individual defendants, and the Section 1981 claims were dismissed, while the motion was denied as to the balance of the claims. Pizarro was ordered to file an amended complaint conforming to the rulings, and leave to amend beyond those changes was denied.