Toledo v. Unibud Restoration Corp.

Background

Andrea Toledo brought claims for sex and gender discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, New York State law, and New York City law. The claims addressed conduct allegedly involving Carlos Uribe and were asserted against, among others, Brend Restoration, LLC and Brend Restoration Services Inc. (collectively, the Brend Defendants).

Toledo was hired by Unibud Restoration Corp. in April 2019 as a construction laborer. She alleged that Uribe, identified as her manager or a Unibud foreman, sent her unwanted sexual messages outside working hours. She reported the messages to Unibud personnel. In June 2019, Toledo and Uribe worked at a Manhattan construction project where Pavarini McGovern LLC was the general contractor and had separately subcontracted with Brend and Unibud. Toledo contended that she left her employment because of continuing sexual harassment.

Toledo filed the action in February 2021. The court had previously dismissed Pavarini after finding that Toledo had not plausibly alleged that Pavarini was her joint employer. Toledo later settled her claims against Unibud. Uribe had been served but had not answered or appeared as of the date of this order. Brend moved for summary judgment on Toledo’s claims against it.

The court’s analysis

Summary judgment is a procedure allowing a court to resolve claims without a trial when there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to win under the law. The court must view the evidence in favor of the party opposing the motion, but that party must present evidence rather than rely on conclusory allegations or speculation.

The court held that an employer-employee relationship is a required part of a Title VII claim. Toledo relied on the joint-employer doctrine, which can treat an entity other than the formal employer as an employer when that entity significantly controls the worker’s employment conditions.

Toledo alleged that Brend required her to complete paperwork and attend safety training, provided safety equipment and identification cards, and had her work alongside Brend employees on interchangeable tasks. She also alleged generally that Brend supervised and controlled her work. The court found these allegations and supporting materials insufficient. Toledo did not provide evidence that Brend controlled hiring, firing, discipline, pay, disputes, or her daily activities. The evidence instead showed that Unibud hired and paid her and that Uribe, a Unibud foreman, controlled her daily activities at the project. The court also noted Toledo’s concessions that Brend did not set pay rates and did not directly hire or fire her or her coworkers.

The court further stated that, even if Brend were considered a joint employer, the record did not show that Brend knew or should have known about the alleged harassment. Toledo did not report the harassment to Brend employees, and the alleged messages were sent outside work hours and away from the project. The court also found no allegations that Brend took deliberate action causing a constructive discharge.

Disposition

The court dismissed Toledo’s Title VII claims against Brend and granted Brend’s motion for summary judgment as to those claims. Because the federal claims against Brend were dismissed, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims in the same case—over Toledo’s claims under New York State and New York City law. It dismissed those state-law claims without prejudice. The court directed the clerk to close the motion. The order did not state a disposition of Toledo’s claims against Uribe.