Manasy Hardy Ravelombonjy v. Zinsou-Fatimabay

Background

Manasay Hardy Ravelombonjy alleged that the defendants recruited him from Madagascar to work as a driver for Jean Francis Zinsou, then the Permanent Representative of Benin to the United Nations, and Colette Zinsou-Fatimabay. Ravelombonjy alleged that he worked from approximately 7:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m., seven days a week, had fewer than ten days off during about 39 months of employment, and was subjected to threats involving termination, deportation, and renewal of his visa. He also alleged mistreatment, restrictions on his living conditions, interference with medical care, and failure to pay minimum wage, overtime, and other compensation.

Ravelombonjy asserted claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act for forced labor and trafficking, the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law for wage violations, and New York claims involving fraud, contract, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and emotional distress. After Jean Francis Zinsou died, Colette Zinsou-Fatimabay and Andry Zinsou were substituted as co-executors of his estate.

Defendants’ Motion

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which addresses subject-matter jurisdiction; Rule 12(b)(6), which addresses whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim; and Rule 12(b)(7), which addresses failure to join a required party. Although the motion’s title also referred to quashing service, the court stated that the defendants did not present an argument about service and therefore did not address that issue.

The defendants argued that Jean Francis Zinsou had residual immunity under Article 39(2) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. That protection generally covers a former diplomat’s acts performed in the exercise of official mission functions. They also argued that the forced-labor and trafficking allegations were not plausible, that Colette Zinsou-Fatimabay was not Ravelombonjy’s employer, and that the Permanent Mission of Benin to the United Nations was a required and indispensable party.

Diplomatic Immunity

The court denied the immunity argument. It explained that residual immunity does not cover conduct concerning a diplomat’s household or personal life that provides, at most, an indirect benefit to diplomatic functions.

The court considered several facts. Ravelombonjy entered the United States on a G-5 visa, which the court described as applying to personal employees and domestic workers. His employment contract identified Jean Francis Zinsou as the employer, even though the contract appeared on Mission letterhead, carried the Mission’s seal, and involved Mission representatives. The Mission issued his checks and provided certain benefits, creating a close question about the employment relationship.

The court also considered that Ravelombonjy lived in the defendants’ residence and alleged that he drove Colette Zinsou-Fatimabay, the defendants’ children, family friends, and other people for personal errands and other purposes. The court concluded that, even though some driving involved Mission-related activities, the alleged services predominantly served the defendants’ private needs. It therefore held that Jean Francis Zinsou’s employment of Ravelombonjy was not an official act and that he could not claim residual immunity for the employment-related claims.

The court separately held that the alleged forced-labor and trafficking conduct, if true, was private conduct rather than conduct performed as part of Jean Francis Zinsou’s diplomatic functions. Those claims therefore were not barred by residual diplomatic immunity either.

Forced-Labor and Trafficking Claims

The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the allegations were merely an implausible account of difficult employment. Ravelombonjy alleged that the defendants required him to work or remain available for extremely long periods, gave him very few days off, restricted aspects of his living conditions, failed to accommodate illness, and threatened to terminate him, send him to Madagascar, withhold visa-renewal support, or involve authorities.

The court concluded that these allegations plausibly stated a forced-labor claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1589. In particular, threats to withdraw immigration support or cause deportation could constitute abuse or threatened abuse of legal process, or a scheme intended to make Ravelombonjy believe that he would suffer serious harm if he stopped working. Because Ravelombonjy also alleged that the defendants recruited him to come to the United States and then subjected him to forced labor, the court concluded that he plausibly stated trafficking claims under 18 U.S.C. § 1590.

Employment Claims Against Colette Zinsou-Fatimabay

The court also denied dismissal of the wage-related claims against Colette Zinsou-Fatimabay. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, an employer can include a person who exercises practical control over a worker, even if that person is not named as the employer in a written contract.

Ravelombonjy alleged that Colette Zinsou-Fatimabay helped arrange his employment and travel, directed his work, required him to drive her, demanded reimbursement for taxi rides when he could not drive her, and threatened punishment, termination, or return to Madagascar. Although she did not set his pay rate or maintain employment records, the court found that the allegations plausibly suggested that she had power over his employment and controlled his schedule and working conditions.

Required Party

The court agreed that the Permanent Mission of Benin to the United Nations was a necessary party to Ravelombonjy’s contract-related claims because the Mission might have obligations under the employment agreement. The contract involved the Mission’s representatives, letterhead, seal, salary payments, sick leave, and health insurance, while Jean Francis Zinsou supervised and managed Ravelombonjy’s work.

However, the court concluded that the Mission was not an indispensable party. The parties agreed that the Mission could not be joined because of sovereign immunity. Applying the factors in Rule 19(b), the court found that the defendants had not shown that the case could not fairly proceed without the Mission. The court noted that Ravelombonjy alleged that Jean Francis Zinsou himself breached the contract and that the defendants could pursue a claim against the Mission if appropriate. The court also rejected unsupported arguments that Ravelombonjy had an adequate alternative forum elsewhere.

Disposition

The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It also denied the request for oral argument as moot, directed the defendants to answer the amended complaint by October 20, 2022, and scheduled an initial pretrial conference for October 26, 2022. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the listed motions and amend the case caption as requested for the estate representatives.