D'Anzieri v. HHarrison Global LLC

Background

Lenore D’Anzieri alleged that Harrison Global LLC and Steven Pitel discriminated against her because of sex, age, and disability, failed to accommodate her disability, and retaliated after she complained. She asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State Human Rights Law.

D’Anzieri alleged that she worked for Harrison Global from July 2016 until after March 2020 and worked from her New York City apartment when she was in New York. Harrison Global was headquartered in and organized under the laws of Massachusetts and operated in New York, including through an Astoria office. Pitel resided in Pennsylvania and was D’Anzieri’s supervisor.

The alleged conduct included comments and actions at a California convention concerning D’Anzieri’s use of a scooter and cane, a sexual comment during a conference call concerning Harrison Global’s New York Fashion Week business, and an allegation that Pitel replaced her with a younger employee as the manager of a New York client account. D’Anzieri also alleged that she complained to Human Resources, after which Harrison Global revised her compensation plan, furloughed her, and eventually discharged her.

Motions and personal jurisdiction

Defendants moved to dismiss all claims for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2), to dismiss the New York City and New York State claims for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), and to dismiss all claims for improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3).

The court held that it lacked general personal jurisdiction over Harrison Global because the company was not essentially “at home” in New York. Its New York office and business activity did not establish that high-level decision-making occurred there. The court separately analyzed specific personal jurisdiction for each claim.

The court held that it had specific personal jurisdiction over Harrison Global for D’Anzieri’s sex-discrimination, age-discrimination, and retaliation claims. The sex-discrimination claim was sufficiently connected to Harrison Global’s New York business because the alleged discriminatory communication occurred during a call concerning the company’s New York Fashion Week operations while D’Anzieri worked in New York. The age-discrimination claim was sufficiently connected to New York because Pitel allegedly replaced D’Anzieri with a younger employee during a meeting with a New York client in New York. The retaliation claim also qualified because the alleged retaliation occurred outside New York but its injury was felt in New York, where D’Anzieri worked, and Harrison Global conducted substantial business.

The court held that it lacked specific personal jurisdiction over Harrison Global for the disability-discrimination and failure-to-accommodate claims. Those claims arose from conduct at a convention in California, and D’Anzieri did not allege a sufficient connection between that conduct and Harrison Global’s New York business activities.

The court held that it had specific personal jurisdiction over Pitel for the sex-discrimination claims because those claims arose from his alleged comment during a conference call with D’Anzieri while she worked in New York. The court held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Pitel for the age-discrimination and retaliation claims because D’Anzieri did not provide detailed facts showing that Pitel exercised enough control over Harrison Global’s decisions to attribute the company’s New York contacts to him. The court also held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Pitel for the disability-discrimination and failure-to-accommodate claims because those claims arose from the California convention and were not connected to Pitel’s limited travel to New York.

New York State and City claims

The court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss D’Anzieri’s New York City Human Rights Law and New York State Human Rights Law sex-discrimination, age-discrimination, and retaliation claims for failure to state a claim. The court concluded that D’Anzieri adequately alleged that she resided and worked in New York City and New York State because she worked from a Manhattan residence and serviced, met with, and communicated with New York-based clients.

For the City law claims, the court concluded that the alleged discrimination and retaliation had an impact in New York City because D’Anzieri worked there. For the State law claims, the court concluded that she adequately alleged that the conduct affected the conditions of her employment in New York.

Venue and disposition

The court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss for improper venue. It held that venue was proper in the Southern District of New York because D’Anzieri alleged that conduct supporting her surviving sex-discrimination, age-discrimination, and retaliation claims occurred while she worked in the district.

The court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Specifically, it dismissed without prejudice the age-discrimination and retaliation claims against Pitel and the disability-discrimination and failure-to-accommodate claims against Harrison Global and Pitel. The court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and denied the motion to dismiss for improper venue.

The court lifted the discovery stay, set fact-discovery and expert-discovery deadlines, directed the parties to meet and confer about a discovery plan, and closed the motion at Docket 38.