Shamciyan v. Acacia Network Inc.
- John Cronan
- 1:22-cv-02122
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 17
In Shamciyan v. Acacia Network, Judge Cronan denied dismissal of the federal race claims but granted dismissal of three other claims.
Michael Shamciyan’s Section 1981 race-discrimination and retaliation claims continue, while his New York State and New York City human-rights claims were dismissed without prejudice and his New York equal-pay claim was dismissed. Acacia Network, Inc. and Michelle Matics remain defendants on the surviving claim; the opinion does not resolve the separate wage claim.
What happened
In Shamciyan v. Acacia Network Inc., Michael Shamciyan sued his former employer and supervisor, alleging race, religion, national-origin, and age discrimination, retaliation, unequal pay, and unpaid wages. He alleged that Hispanic employees received better treatment and pay, while he faced hostile treatment, unpaid overtime, and other workplace actions.
The court reviewed the defendants’ request to dismiss four claims. It allowed Shamciyan’s federal race-discrimination and retaliation claims under Section 1981 to continue, rejected the argument that alleging other forms of discrimination defeated those claims, and dismissed his New York State and New York City human-rights claims after he agreed to withdraw them. It also dismissed his New York equal-pay claim because he did not identify similarly situated employees who performed substantially similar work.
Judge Cronan granted the motion to dismiss the second, third, and fourth causes of action, denied it as to the first cause of action, declined to allow another amendment, and ended the discovery stay. The opinion did not decide Shamciyan’s separate wage claim, which was not among the claims challenged in this motion.
The detailed version
- Shamciyan v. Acacia Network Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-02122
- John Cronan
- Sept. 24, 2023
Background
Michael Shamciyan sued Acacia Network, Inc. and former supervisor Michelle Matics. He alleged discrimination and retaliation based on race, religion, national origin, and age; unequal pay; and unpaid wages under federal, New York State, and New York City law. The challenged motion addressed the first four causes of action, not the fifth cause of action for failure to pay wages.
Shamciyan alleged that he was Persian, Jewish, and 56 years old, and that he was one of the few non-Hispanic employees in his workplace. He claimed that Hispanic employees received better treatment, including overtime pay and coverage during medical leave, while he was denied overtime, required to work through lunch or medical leave, treated hostilely, passed over or underpaid in connection with promotion opportunities, and denied an employer scholarship. He also alleged that he complained to human resources and management about these matters and that his employment conditions worsened before he resigned.
Legal standard
The court applied the standard for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. At this stage, the court accepts the complaint’s factual allegations as true and draws reasonable inferences for the plaintiff, but the allegations must make the claimed right to relief plausible rather than merely possible.
Section 1981 claims
The first cause of action asserted race discrimination and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The defendants argued that Shamciyan could not show that race was a necessary cause of the alleged discrimination because he also alleged discrimination based on age, religion, and national origin.
The court rejected that argument and denied the motion as to the first cause of action. For the discrimination claim, the court explained that an action can have multiple necessary causes; race need not be the only cause. For retaliation, Shamciyan needed to allege that he had a good-faith, reasonable belief that he was complaining about racial discrimination and that the adverse action would not have occurred without a retaliatory motive. The court found that the defendants did not argue that he failed to allege protected activity or lacked that good-faith belief.
The court also determined that Shamciyan had sufficiently alleged that he was Jewish to receive protection from race-based discrimination under Section 1981. The court emphasized, however, that Section 1981 addresses racial discrimination and does not generally cover discrimination based only on age or religion.
New York State and New York City human-rights claims
Shamciyan did not oppose dismissal of his second and third causes of action under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. The court therefore granted the motion as to both causes of action and dismissed them without prejudice.
New York equal-pay claim
The fourth cause of action alleged that defendants violated New York Labor Law § 194 by paying employees outside Shamciyan’s protected classes more for substantially equal work. The court held that an equal-pay claim requires allegations showing different wages, substantially equal work in skill, effort, and responsibility, and similar working conditions.
The court found that Shamciyan described his own duties and alleged that other employees received more pay or overtime, but did not describe the duties of any comparator in enough detail to show that the comparator performed equal or substantially similar work. The court therefore granted the motion to dismiss the fourth cause of action. The opinion does not state that this dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Leave to amend and case status
Shamciyan did not request permission to amend, and the court declined to grant permission on its own initiative. The court noted that he had already amended his complaint twice and had been alerted before the second amendment that the pay-differential claim lacked allegations identifying a substantially similar comparator.
Disposition
Judge John P. Cronan granted the motion to dismiss with respect to the second, third, and fourth causes of action and denied it with respect to the first cause of action. The court ended the stay of discovery and directed the parties to submit a proposed case-management plan and scheduling order. The fifth cause of action was not resolved by this motion.
Read the full 17-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.