Mitura v. Finco Services, Inc.

Background

Isabelle Mitura sued Finco Services, Inc., doing business as Current, and Stuart Sopp and Alex Sergiyenko in their individual and professional capacities. She asserted claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act, Section 1981, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, the Equal Pay Act, and the New York State Pay Equity Law.

Mitura alleged that after she was diagnosed with breast cancer, she told Sergiyenko that she intended to take leave protected by the Family and Medical Leave Act. According to the amended complaint, Sergiyenko discouraged her from using that leave, encouraged her to use paid time off instead, and did not provide required leave paperwork. Current terminated her employment shortly before she was scheduled to return, and Sergiyenko allegedly referred to her time away when explaining the termination.

Mitura also alleged that Sergiyenko repeatedly made disparaging comments about her age, race, national origin, gender, and family status, and that Sopp made a comment invoking stereotypes about Asian women. She further alleged that she complained about gender-based pay gaps and discriminatory conduct, and that the defendants later threatened to seek sanctions and bring a countersuit if she disclosed salary information in her complaint.

Motions and arbitration ruling

The defendants moved to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act and, alternatively, moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim. Mitura argued that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable under the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act because her complaint included sexual-harassment claims.

The court held that, for that federal law to apply, the alleged sexual-harassment claim had to be pleaded well enough to survive a motion to dismiss. Applying the standards under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law, the court found that the alleged weekly insults, comments about Mitura’s breasts and menstruation, and stereotype-based comments plausibly stated a sexual-harassment claim. The court also found a sufficient connection to New York because the alleged harassment occurred while Mitura was working in Current’s New York City office.

The court therefore held that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable under the federal law and denied the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration with respect to all claims in the amended complaint.

Motion to dismiss

Family and Medical Leave Act claims. The court denied the motion to dismiss Count I as to Current and Sergiyenko. It held that Mitura plausibly alleged interference with her leave rights because the alleged failure to provide information and paperwork may have prevented her from arranging leave in a way that preserved her right to reinstatement. The court also held that Sergiyenko’s alleged reference to her leave when explaining her termination was enough, at the pleading stage, to allege a connection between her attempt to use protected leave and her termination.

The court granted Sopp’s motion to dismiss Count I as to himself. Although he may have had supervisory authority, the amended complaint did not allege that he was directly or indirectly involved in the alleged Family and Medical Leave Act violations.

Section 1981 claims. The court denied the motion to dismiss Mitura’s Section 1981 discrimination claim in Count II. It held that the repeated references to her race and national origin, together with the alleged stereotype-based comment at a companywide meeting, plausibly alleged a race-based hostile work environment.

The court granted the motion to dismiss Mitura’s Section 1981 retaliation claim. The amended complaint did not plausibly allege that Sergiyenko knew about her report to human resources, and the more-than-six-month gap between that report and her termination was too long, without additional facts showing retaliatory motive, to support a causal connection.

Equal Pay Act and New York State Pay Equity Law claims. The court granted the motion to dismiss Counts III and IV. Mitura alleged that she complained about gender-based pay gaps, but the court found that she pleaded no facts showing retaliatory motive and that the time between her complaints and termination was too long to support causation based only on timing.

New York State and New York City human-rights claims. The court denied the motion to dismiss the discrimination and harassment claims in Counts V and VI against Current. It also denied the motion to dismiss those claims against Sergiyenko and Sopp individually because the amended complaint alleged that both participated in discriminatory conduct and had relevant authority or involvement under the applicable laws.

The court granted the motion to dismiss the retaliation claims in Counts V and VI. It found that the amended complaint did not plausibly show that Sergiyenko knew about Mitura’s complaints concerning his discriminatory conduct, and that the timing did not support a causal connection.

The court denied the motion to dismiss Count VI as to Mitura’s New York City interference claim. The alleged threats to seek sanctions and bring a countersuit could plausibly have coerced or intimidated her into not pursuing the case or disclosing specific salary information.

Disposition

The court denied the motion to compel arbitration and granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. The surviving claims were Mitura’s Family and Medical Leave Act interference and retaliation claims against Current and Sergiyenko; her Section 1981 discrimination claim; her New York State Human Rights Law discrimination and harassment claims; and her New York City Human Rights Law discrimination, harassment, and interference claims. The court directed the parties to report whether mediation or a settlement conference would be helpful.