Dingman v. Fuji Japanese Steakhouse Sushi Inc.

Background

Heather Dingman sued her former employer, Fuji Japanese Steakhouse Sushi Inc., and An H. Chen, also known as Andy Chen, in his official and individual capacities. She alleged employment discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and New York Executive Law § 296, known as the New York State Human Rights Law. She also brought a New York aiding-and-abetting claim against Chen.

Dingman had worked for Fuji since 2011 and frequently served as a shift leader. She took maternity leave from about May 20, 2019, to July 29, 2019. Fuji's general manager, Jill Mattiello, resigned on August 12, 2019. Dingman said she was willing to take the position, but Chen quickly offered it to Amanda Daston, who accepted it. According to testimony and text messages cited by the court, Chen said Dingman's brain was “scrambled from having a baby,” that she was acting crazy because of her baby, and that she had no more time because she had a baby.

Dingman also relied on a May 13, 2019 group text in which she criticized Chen's handling of a customer's racist behavior toward staff. She later filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights, which was also filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging discrimination based on sex and family status. The state agency found probable cause of discrimination and later denied a request to reopen the matter after it was administratively dismissed.

Legal standards

Summary judgment is appropriate when the record shows no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. At this stage, the court does not decide witness credibility or weigh competing evidence. Instead, it asks whether a reasonable jury could find for the nonmoving party, drawing reasonable inferences in that party's favor.

The court analyzed the discrimination claims under the burden-shifting framework from McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green. Under that framework, the employee must first present enough evidence for an initial discrimination case. The employer may then offer legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its action, after which the employee must present evidence that those reasons may be a pretext, meaning a cover for unlawful discrimination.

Discrimination claims

The court held that Dingman's Title VII claim was based on sex stereotyping, not simply on family status. The court explained that treating mothers as insufficiently devoted to work, or assuming that work and motherhood are incompatible, can support a sex-discrimination claim. The court also held that Dingman did not need to identify a male employee who was treated more favorably to survive summary judgment.

The court found that Dingman presented sufficient evidence to support an inference of discrimination. It treated Chen's alleged comments about her baby and her mental state as evidence connected to the promotion decision, while leaving credibility disputes for a jury. The court also found that Fuji and Chen had offered nondiscriminatory explanations, including Daston's qualifications, her relationship with Chen, her management style, her longer average hours, and alleged problems with Dingman's customer relations and attitude.

The court nevertheless found sufficient evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could conclude that those explanations were pretextual. Chen gave few specific examples of alleged customer complaints or problems with Dingman's attitude. Dingman presented evidence that Chen had trusted her with payroll, had previously offered her the general-manager position, and that she and Daston worked similar hours during the relevant period. Chen's comments about Dingman's baby also provided evidence that sex stereotyping may have played a role in the decision. The court therefore denied summary judgment on Dingman's Title VII discrimination claim and denied summary judgment on her parallel New York State Human Rights Law discrimination claim.

Retaliation claims

Dingman's Title VII retaliation claim was based on the assertion that Fuji failed to promote her because she had complained about Chen's response to a customer's racist behavior. The court held that Dingman did not raise this retaliation theory in her administrative charge. Her charge concerned sex and family-status discrimination, while the retaliation claim involved opposition to racial discrimination. The court found that the retaliation claim was not reasonably related to the claims presented to the administrative agencies and granted summary judgment on the Title VII retaliation claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

The court considered the New York retaliation claim on its merits because New York law did not require exhaustion of administrative remedies before filing that claim. It held that Dingman had not shown that her group-text complaint was protected activity because the complaint concerned alleged discrimination by a customer, not an unlawful employment practice by Fuji or Chen. The court also found that she had not established a causal connection between the complaint and the failure to promote. The court therefore granted summary judgment on the New York retaliation claim.

Aiding-and-abetting claim against Chen

The court recognized that Chen could potentially be individually liable under New York law because he was a part owner of Fuji and had authority to hire, fire, and promote employees. But it dismissed the separate aiding-and-abetting claim under New York Executive Law § 296(6). Dingman offered no factual support that Chen assisted another person’s discriminatory conduct, and her discrimination claim against Fuji was based on Chen's own conduct. The court held that Chen could not aid and abet his own alleged discrimination.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion for summary judgment. It denied the motion as to Dingman's Title VII and New York State Human Rights Law discrimination claims. It granted the motion as to her Title VII retaliation claim, her New York retaliation claim, and her New York aiding-and-abetting claim against Chen. The court also directed the parties to appear for a telephonic pretrial conference.