Ojeda v. Schrager

Background

Jocelyn Ojeda sued Ian Schrager and IS Chrystie Management LLC doing business as Public Hotel, alleging pregnancy-based sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York City Human Rights Law. She also asserted a New York City Human Rights Law claim against Schrager for aiding and abetting discrimination.

According to the complaint, Ojeda began working for Public Hotel in July 2022 as the Arrivals, Departures, and Guest Experience Manager and served on the Executive Committee. She learned she was pregnant around December 13, 2022, and told Giorgio Di Pietro and the Human Resources Manager during the week of December 19. She alleged that she then worked 18 consecutive days and 20 shifts during the busy holiday season. On January 9, 2023, Di Pietro terminated her and said the reason was poor performance. Ojeda alleged that she had received only positive feedback, had not been warned about performance problems, and was actually fired because Schrager did not want a pregnant woman in a leadership position.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim based on the facts alleged.

Title VII claim

The court held that Ojeda plausibly alleged a pregnancy-discrimination claim under Title VII. At the motion-to-dismiss stage, she did not have to prove the full three-step framework used later in a case. Instead, she needed to allege facts supporting a reasonable inference that pregnancy was a motivating factor in an adverse employment action.

The court relied particularly on the approximately three-week period between Ojeda’s pregnancy announcement and termination. It also considered her allegations that she had worked extensively during the holiday season, had received no negative performance feedback, and was given little explanation for the claimed performance-based termination. Taken together, those allegations were enough to let the Title VII claim proceed.

Corporate New York City Human Rights Law claim

The court also allowed Ojeda’s sex-discrimination claim against the corporate defendant under the New York City Human Rights Law to proceed. The court explained that the city law is interpreted more broadly than Title VII and concluded that, because the federal claim survived, the similar claim under the city law also survived.

Claims against Schrager individually

The court dismissed Ojeda’s New York City Human Rights Law claims against Schrager individually. Under the authorities discussed by the court, an individual associated with a business generally is not treated as the plaintiff’s employer merely because the person owns, operates, or works for the business. An individual may still be liable for personal discriminatory conduct or for actually helping carry out discriminatory conduct by someone else.

The court found that the complaint did not allege that Schrager personally participated in or actually helped carry out Ojeda’s termination. It also found that the complaint did not connect Schrager’s statements about maintaining an “on brand” culture to sex or pregnancy discrimination with sufficient factual allegations. Arguments in Ojeda’s opposition brief about Schrager’s control over employment decisions could not substitute for allegations in the complaint.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The opinion states that the New York City Human Rights Law claims against Schrager were dismissed, while the Title VII and corporate-defendant New York City Human Rights Law claims survived. The order directed “Defendant IS Development LLC” to file an answer within 21 days and directed the Clerk to terminate Ian Schrager as a party. The opinion’s caption identifies the corporate defendant as IS Chrystie Management LLC doing business as Public Hotel, so the reference to IS Development LLC is an apparent naming inconsistency in the order.