Friederick v. Passfeed, Inc.

Background

Jamie Friederick sued her former employer, Passfeed, Inc., its owner and chief executive officer, Richard Wang, and her former supervisor, Atilla Sary, who professionally used the name “Dennis.” She alleged sexual harassment, retaliatory treatment, and termination after she opposed the alleged harassment. Her claims arose under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL).

Friederick alleged that Sary made unwanted romantic and sexual comments and advances, continued after she rejected him, interfered with her work, and treated her negatively. She contacted Passfeed’s human-resources representative about making a formal complaint on May 31, 2019. She was terminated on June 4, 2019. The complaint alleged that Wang directed his assistant to send the termination notice.

Motion and legal standard

The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint alleges enough facts to support a legally plausible claim. Judge Abrams treated the complaint’s factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion, while not accepting legal conclusions as facts.

The defendants argued, among other things, that Passfeed did not have enough employees to be covered by Title VII. The court concluded that Friederick plausibly alleged that Passfeed’s New York and China offices were offices of the same company and that the combined workforce met Title VII’s minimum employee requirement.

Sexual-harassment claims

The court held that Friederick plausibly alleged both a hostile-work-environment theory and a quid-pro-quo theory of sexual harassment. A hostile-work-environment claim alleges that discriminatory conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to make the workplace abusive. A quid-pro-quo claim alleges that an employee’s response to unwelcome sexual conduct was used as the basis for employment decisions.

The court found that the alleged repeated advances, sexual comments, invitations, unwanted gifts, and hostile remarks were sufficient at the pleading stage to support a hostile-work-environment claim. It also found that Sary’s alleged refusal to review Friederick’s work and reassignment of a writing project after she rejected his advances plausibly supported a quid-pro-quo claim.

The resulting dispositions were:

- Friederick’s Title VII sexual-harassment claims against Passfeed survived. - Her NYSHRL sexual-harassment claims against Sary survived, but her NYSHRL sexual-harassment claims against Passfeed were dismissed because she had not sufficiently alleged that Passfeed encouraged, condoned, or approved Sary’s conduct. - Her NYCHRL sexual-harassment claims against Passfeed and Sary survived. - Her NYSHRL and NYCHRL sexual-harassment claims against Wang were dismissed because the complaint did not sufficiently allege that he participated in the harassment. - The aiding-and-abetting claims against all three defendants were dismissed.

Retaliation claims

The court held that Friederick plausibly alleged retaliation under Title VII, the NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL. It identified her human-resources complaint and her repeated rejection of Sary’s advances as alleged opposition to unlawful discrimination. The court also concluded that changing her work responsibilities, refusing to review her work, ignoring her, and terminating her could qualify as adverse actions. The close timing between her complaint to human resources and her termination supported an inference of a causal connection at this stage.

The retaliation claims had the following dispositions:

- The Title VII retaliation claim against Passfeed survived. - The NYSHRL and NYCHRL retaliation claims against Passfeed survived. - The NYSHRL and NYCHRL retaliation claims against Sary survived because he allegedly participated in the retaliatory conduct. - The NYSHRL and NYCHRL retaliation claims against Wang also survived because Friederick alleged that he directed the termination notice after the company learned she was reporting harassment.

Disposition

Judge Ronnie Abrams granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The opinion states that the first, second, fourth, and seventh causes of action survived in their entirety; the third survived only as to sexual harassment by Sary; the sixth survived as to sexual harassment by Passfeed and Sary but was dismissed as to Wang; and the fifth and eighth causes of action were dismissed entirely. The court directed the clerk to terminate the pending motions, noting that the earlier motions filed before the amended complaint were moot.