Morrison v. Scotia Capital Inc.
- Sidney Stein
- 1:21-cv-01859
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Morrison v. Scotia Capital, Judge Stein granted and denied motions dismissing employment claims, leaving some claims pending.
Emily Morrison’s employment claims against Scotia Capital (USA) Inc. and Jake Lawrence; the order dismissed some claims and allowed others to continue.
What happened
In Morrison v. Scotia Capital (USA) Inc., Emily Morrison brought employment-related claims against Scotia Capital (USA) Inc. and Jake Lawrence. The order addressed defendants’ requests to dismiss some of those claims and also granted their request to move a court conference to October 4, 2023.
The court granted Lawrence’s motion in full, dismissing Morrison’s New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law claims against him and her New York Labor Law claim. As to Scotia, the court allowed the state and city human-rights claims to continue but dismissed the New York Labor Law claim. The court also dismissed Morrison’s failure-to-promote claims, some pay-discrimination claims occurring before January 24, 2018, and her Equal Pay Act claim. It allowed her Title VII hostile-work-environment claim, timely Title VII retaliation claims, and Louisiana employment-discrimination claim to proceed.
Judge Sidney H. Stein issued the order. The order resolves motions to dismiss and does not decide the entire employment dispute on the merits; the reasons for the rulings were to be provided at the October 4 conference.
The detailed version
- Morrison v. Scotia Capital Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-01859
- Sidney Stein
- Oct. 4, 2023
Background
Emily Morrison sued Scotia Capital (USA) Inc. and Jake Lawrence. The opinion addresses several employment-related claims, including claims under the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, the New York Labor Law, Title VII, the Equal Pay Act, and the Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law. The defendants asked the court to dismiss some claims. Scotia also sought judgment on the pleadings, a procedure asking the court to resolve claims based on the pleadings filed in the case.
The court also granted the defendants’ request to adjourn a September 18 conference. It ordered that the conference take place on October 4 at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 23A.
Rulings on Lawrence’s Motion
The court granted Lawrence’s motion to dismiss in full.
The court dismissed Morrison’s New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law claims against Lawrence, Counts 3 and 4. It ruled that Morrison’s allegations did not show sufficient impact in New York under the standard discussed in Hoffman v. Parade Publications.
The court also dismissed Morrison’s New York Labor Law claim against Lawrence, Count 6, based on the presumption against applying that law outside its territorial reach.
Rulings on Scotia’s Motion
The court denied Scotia’s motion to dismiss Counts 3 and 4. Unlike the claims against Lawrence, the court found that Morrison’s allegations against Scotia satisfied the Hoffman standard.
The court granted Scotia’s motion to dismiss Morrison’s New York Labor Law claim, Count 6, based on the presumption against applying that law outside its territorial reach.
The court dismissed Morrison’s failure-to-promote claims as either time-barred or lacking merit. The order does not identify which claims were dismissed on each ground.
The court denied Scotia’s motion to dismiss Morrison’s Title VII hostile-work-environment claim on the merits. It also denied the motion as to Morrison’s Title VII retaliation claims to the extent those claims fell within the 300-day limitations period.
The court granted Scotia’s motion to dismiss Morrison’s pay-discrimination claims based on events before January 24, 2018, and granted the motion as to Morrison’s Equal Pay Act claim. The court denied Scotia’s motion to dismiss Morrison’s Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law claim.
Classification and Effect
This is a procedural order because the court ruled on motions to dismiss and judgment on the pleadings rather than resolving the full employment dispute. Some claims were dismissed, while others remained pending. The order states that the court would provide fuller reasons for these determinations on the record at the October 4, 2023 conference.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.