Whitcombe v. Lanza Corp

Background

Alexandra Whitcombe sued Lanza Corp., Sign Design, JC Awning, Adaptive Signage, Joseph Lanza, and Nicholas Pagnozzi. She alleged employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 based on race, religion, and gender, as well as claims under New York State and New York City law. She alleged that she experienced hostile and abusive conduct at work, including sexually explicit and anti-Semitic comments, unequal treatment of women, and other workplace hostility. She also alleged that Joseph Lanza terminated her in August 2019 after initially blaming her for failing to order employee T-shirts and then saying he wanted to remove her before her medical benefits began.

Before the motion to dismiss, the court allowed limited discovery about the number of employees employed by the corporate defendants. The parties could not agree whether the corporate defendants had at least 15 employees, the minimum number required for an entity to qualify as an employer under Title VII. The court gave the defendants permission to file a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12.

Rule 12(b)(6) Standard and Evidence Considered

The defendants moved under Rule 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. On such a motion, the court generally accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true and asks whether they plausibly support relief. The court stated that it would not resolve factual disputes or credibility issues at this stage.

The parties submitted more than 250 pages of materials, including Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filings, correspondence, deposition materials, and tax documents. The court declined to consider those materials because the parties had not shown that they could properly be considered on a motion to dismiss. The court limited its analysis to the complaint.

Title VII Employee-Number Requirement

Title VII defines an employer, in relevant part, as an entity with 15 or more employees for each working day in at least 20 calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year. The court explained that this employee-number requirement is an element of a Title VII claim, rather than a jurisdictional requirement.

The court held that Whitcombe did not plausibly allege that any corporate defendant met the 15-employee threshold. The complaint did not state, even generally, that any corporate defendant had at least 15 employees. The court also found that the factual allegations identified only eight employees by name and provided no basis to infer that enough additional employees existed. Even counting Joseph Lanza and Nicholas Pagnozzi, the court stated that the total would reach only 10 individuals, while noting that the complaint treated them as owners and that owners were not employees for this count.

Because Whitcombe failed to plead facts establishing that one or more corporate defendants qualified as an employer under Title VII, the court dismissed her Title VII claims. The court also noted that Title VII does not impose individual liability, so its employee-number analysis concerned the corporate defendants.

State and City Claims

After dismissing the Title VII claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims—over Whitcombe’s remaining New York State and New York City claims. The court stated that it expressed no opinion about whether those claims were legally viable.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice as to Whitcombe’s Title VII claims and without prejudice to refiling in the proper forum as to her New York State and New York City claims. The Clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion and close the case.