Lee v. Yang

Background

Erica Lindsay Lee sued Andrew Yang and Friends of Andrew Yang, Yang’s 2020 political campaign organization. The First Amended Complaint alleged violations of federal, New York State, and New York City employment laws arising from Lee’s volunteer work with the campaign and alleged gender discrimination by volunteers and paid staff. Lee later withdrew her defamation claim.

According to the First Amended Complaint, Lee applied for campaign positions, became a Yang Gang Regional Organizer, and was told she would be compensated. She alleged that her application to moderate an online campaign forum was denied, that she was not interviewed or hired for an Executive Assistant position, and that she was removed from her organizer position. She also alleged that campaign volunteers and employees criticized her, published personal information about her, and that Defendants later hired male volunteers for full-time or permanent positions.

Employment-relationship claims

Lee asserted hostile-work-environment, wrongful-termination, and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The court dismissed these claims because the complaint did not adequately allege an employment relationship.

The court explained that, when the employment relationship is not clear, a plaintiff must first show that the defendant hired her and that she received remuneration—pay or substantial benefits—for her work. The complaint alleged only that Defendants represented that Lee would be compensated. It did not allege that she actually received compensation during the approximately three months of her alleged employment, or that she received qualifying in-kind benefits. The complaint also did not allege that Yang Gang Regional Organizers generally received compensation but that Lee waived it. Because Lee did not plead actual remuneration, the court concluded that the employment protections of Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law did not apply to the alleged volunteer-related conduct.

Failure-to-hire claim

The court separately addressed Lee’s attempt to assert a discriminatory failure-to-hire claim concerning the Executive Assistant position. The court stated that the First Amended Complaint did not plead failure to hire as a theory of liability and that Lee could not add a new claim in her opposition to the motion to dismiss.

The court further held that, even if the complaint had asserted that claim, the allegations were insufficient. Lee did not explain how she was qualified for the Executive Assistant position, whether it was paid, who was hired for it, how that person’s qualifications compared with hers, or how the five male volunteers later hired into other positions were relevant to the Executive Assistant position. The court therefore found that the allegations did not support the required minimal inference of discriminatory motivation.

State-law claims and leave to amend

Because no federal claim remained viable, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims—over the counterpart New York State and New York City claims. The court said the case was at a relatively early stage and that allowing state courts to decide state-law issues supported respect between the federal and state court systems.

The court denied Lee leave to replead employment-discrimination claims based on conduct while she was a volunteer, finding amendment of those claims futile. However, if Lee could in good faith allege facts supporting discriminatory intent in Defendants’ failure to hire her as an Executive Assistant, she could seek leave to file a Second Amended Complaint by February 3, 2023. The court required any such request to explain how the proposed amendment would cure the identified deficiencies and to include a marked draft of the proposed complaint.

Disposition

The court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at Docket 61.