Moretti v. Luxury Cars of Westchester LLC

Background

Gene Moretti sued Luxury Cars of Westchester LLC and the DARCARS Defendants: DARCARS Lexus of Mount Kisco, DARCARS of Kisco Avenue Inc., DARCARS of Mt. Kisco, Inc., DARCARS Automotive Group, and Miriam Inc. Moretti alleged that his former employer discriminated and retaliated against him because of his disability and sex when he was terminated from a sales position at a Lexus dealership. He asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL).

Moretti alleged that he had a diagnosed anxiety disorder, took approved medical leave, and was terminated while on leave. He also alleged that the dealership’s business and workforce were transferred from Luxury Cars to the DARCARS Defendants, that other employees continued working, and that the DARCARS Defendants later told him his termination was a “miscommunication” and invited him to return. Moretti alleged that he applied for the position but was not rehired, and that supervisors later made discriminatory and harassing comments during phone calls.

Motion to Dismiss

The DARCARS Defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. At this stage, the court generally accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true but does not accept unsupported legal conclusions or conclusory factual assertions.

The court first considered whether the DARCARS Defendants could be treated as Moretti’s employers. It held that Moretti plausibly alleged that they had some decision-making authority over his employment. The court relied in part on the DARCARS Defendants’ statement that his termination was a “miscommunication,” their failure to clearly state when they began operating the dealership, the dates on the termination letter, and the allegation that other employees continued working through the ownership change. The court emphasized that this finding meant only that Moretti had plausibly alleged an employer relationship sufficient to proceed past that threshold; it did not establish that the DARCARS Defendants actually controlled or decided his termination.

Disability Discrimination

The court dismissed Moretti’s ADA disability-discrimination claim. To plead such a claim, he had to plausibly allege that he had a disability that substantially limited a major life activity, or that the defendants treated him as having such a disability. The court found that Moretti’s allegation that his anxiety disorder required medical leave, without additional facts about how the disorder substantially limited his ability to work or another major life activity, was insufficient. The court also found that he did not plausibly allege that the defendants regarded him as disabled.

The court reached a different conclusion under the NYSHRL, which has a broader definition of disability. It found that Moretti plausibly alleged a disability because he alleged that he had a diagnosed anxiety disorder requiring medical leave. However, the court dismissed the NYSHRL disability-discrimination claim because Moretti did not plausibly allege a connection between his disability and his termination. His allegations that he was terminated while on leave and that non-disabled employees were not terminated were too conclusory and did not show that the other employees were similarly situated in all material respects.

Sex Discrimination and Retaliation

The court dismissed Moretti’s retaliation claim under Title VII and the NYSHRL. The court understood him to rely on a September 4, 2020 letter from his attorney as the protected activity, meaning conduct opposing discrimination that the law protects. But the First Amended Complaint did not explain the letter’s contents, whether it complained about discrimination by the DARCARS Defendants, who received it, or how it caused the alleged later conduct. The court therefore found that Moretti had not plausibly alleged protected activity or a causal connection between the letter and the alleged retaliation.

The court also dismissed the sex-discrimination claim. It treated the claim as abandoned because Moretti did not directly respond to the DARCARS Defendants’ argument that he was not their employee when the alleged discrimination occurred. The court further stated that, even if it considered the claim, Moretti had not provided enough facts connecting the alleged discriminatory phone comments to an adverse employment action or showing that the comments reflected discriminatory intent.

Failure to Hire or Rehire

The court also addressed what it understood to be a possible failure-to-hire or failure-to-rehire claim under Title VII and the NYSHRL. Moretti alleged, “upon information and belief,” that the position either remained open or was filled by someone outside his protected class. The court held that this assertion, without supporting facts or identification of the relevant protected class, was speculation and did not state a plausible claim.

Disposition

The court granted the DARCARS Defendants’ motion to dismiss in its entirety and dismissed Moretti’s claims without prejudice. It granted him leave to file a Second Amended Complaint by May 24, 2024. The court stated that the new complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the First Amended Complaint. If Moretti did not file it by the deadline, the dismissed claims would be deemed dismissed with prejudice. The court did not rule on whether claims against DARCARS of Mt. Kisco, Inc. and Miriam Inc. were exhausted because it dismissed the claims on other grounds.