Barbini v. First Niagara Bank

CLAUDIA BARBINI and MARYETTA HENRY, Plaintiffs, v. FIRST NIAGARA BANK N.A., KEYBANK N.A., as successor in interest to FIRST NIAGARA BANK, N.A., IRINA DAMYANIDU, in her official and individual capacities, ROBERT MCMICHAEL, in his official and individual capacities, and HUGH LAWLESS, in his official and individual capacities, Defendants.

No. 16 Civ. 7887 (NSR)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

March 3, 2022

AMENDED OPINION & ORDER

NELSON S. ROMÁN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

Plaintiffs Claudia Barbini and Maryetta Henry (collectively “Plaintiffs”) commenced this action against their former employer, KeyBank N.A., successor by merger to First Niagara Bank N.A. (the “Bank”), and former co-workers Irina Damyanidu, Robert McMichael, and Hugh Lawless (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging claims of discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 603(a) et seq., and New York Executive Law § 296 et seq. (hereinafter, “New York State Human Rights Law” or “NYSHRL”). Defendants moved for summary judgment against all of Plaintiffs' claims (“Motion, ” ECF No. 139). For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART, DENIES IN PART Defendants' motion.

BACKGROUND

The facts herein are drawn from Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Material Facts Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1 (“Defs.' SUMF”, ECF No. 141), Plaintiffs' Counterstatement of Disputed Material Facts Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1 (“Pls.' CSUMF”, ECF No. 144), the parties' declarations, exhibits, and affidavits, and are undisputed except as indicated.

I. Factual Background

A. Undisputed Facts Concerning the Parties.

Plaintiffs worked together at the Bank's branch located in Vassar, New York.^[1] Barbini also worked at one of the Bank's smaller branches located in Pleasant Valley, New York.^[2] Both branches were jointly managed by the same branch manager.^[3] Barbini worked at the Bank and its predecessor entities, Marine Midland and HSBC, for 27 years from July 5, 1988 until her termination on September 9, 2015.^[4] At the time of her termination, Barbini was sixty-six years old and held the position of Assistant Branch Manager.^[5] Henry joined the Bank in 2013 as a Teller.^[6]The Bank later promoted Henry on 2014 to Senior Teller, the same position she held until her termination on September 9, 2015.^[7] Plaintiffs were both notaries licensed in the State of New York and performed notarial services for the Bank's customers.^[8]

In December 2014, the Bank promoted Defendant Damyanidu to the position of Area Manager, in which she was responsible for overseeing fifteen of the Bank's branches, including the Vassar and Pleasant Valley branches where Plaintiffs worked.^[9] Sometime between January and March 2015, Plaintiffs' Branch Manager-Diana Stile-left her position and Defendant Lawless was hired as an Assistant Branch Manager.^[10] In the months that followed, between April and May 2015, Damyanidu made Barbini the Acting Branch Manager of the Vassar and Pleasant Valley branches until she promoted Lawless to Branch Manager.^[11]

B. Disputed Facts Concerning the Customer Complaint Against Barbini.

Damyanidu avers that she received a customer complaint against Barbini in June 2015.^[12]The complaint related that in December 2014, Barbini tried to convince a customer and her husband to submit a home equity application and that she asked them to provide their driver's licenses numbers so that she could update their information on the Bank's system.^[13] The customer reported that she and her husband provided Barbini with their driver license numbers, but that they left understanding that Barbini would not process the home equity application after they informed her that they were not interested.^[14] The customer later learned that her home had undergone a drive-by appraisal, which indicated that Barbini had submitted the home equity application without the customer's approval.^[15] The customer also later learned, around May 2015, that Barbini had failed to update the driver's license numbers on the Bank's system.^[16] The customer subsequently complained to Damyanidu about Barbini's conduct and the customer severed her relationship with the Bank.^[17]

Upon receiving the customer complaint, Damyanidu discussed it with Human Resources (“HR”), who in turn directed her to discuss it with Barbini.^[18] Damyanidu met with Barbini, notified her of the complaint, and reminded her that she must obtain customer approval prior to submitting a home equity application.^[19] Damyanidu also reinforced that Barbini violated the Bank's procedures and that she could be subject to discipline, although Damyanidu declined to do so.^[20]

Barbini denies that the alleged customer complaint ever occurred.^[21] She indicates that Lawless testified that it was he who received the customer complaint.^[22] Barbini does not dispute that Damyanidu met with her regarding the alleged customer complaint, although she states that Damyanidu and Lawless met with her on July 30, 2015, not June.^[23] Barbini also claims that at the meeting, Damyanidu could not provide the name of the alleged complaining customer despite purportedly speaking with her over the phone for forty-five minutes immediately prior.^[24] Barbini avers that after Lawless told her the name of the alleged complaining customer the next morning, she told him her side of the story: she withdrew the application after several phone conversations with the customer and that the customer “was not upset with [her].”^[25] Barbini further claims that another employee-Jennifer Torner-corroborated that she had the customer's consent to submit the home equity application, contrary to what Lawless and Damyanidu assert.^[26]

C. Disputed Facts Concerning Henry's Inappropriate and Unprofessional Behavior.

Damyanidu testified that during a visit to the Vassar Branch in the summer of 2015, she noticed Henry making inappropriate hand gestures following a staff meeting led by Lawless.^[27]Damyanidu shared her observation and concern with Lawless and asked him about Henry's job performance.^[28] Damyanidu claims Lawless told her that there had been instances in which Henry had behaved unprofessionally, for which Damyanidu suggested they should speak with Henry about her behavior.^[29] Although the next step in the Bank's standard process for addressing such behavior was to draft a warning for HR's review, at no point did Damyanidu or Lawless discipline Henry.^[30]

Henry denies ever acting improperly or unprofessionally towards Lawless.^[31] She does not dispute that neither Damyanidu nor Lawless ever disciplined her for any alleged improper or unprofessional behavior.^[32]

D. Undisputed Facts Concerning Lawless's Improper Texts to Henry.

On Friday, August 14, 2015, Lawless sent Henry and another employee, Nazibe Kaba, three text messages that were supposedly intended for his wife.^[33] The first text message contained a link to an adult website, kink.com (the “Website”). The two texts that followed included a password and username for the Website.^[34] Kaba swiftly responded with texts to Lawless that (i) asked what the Website was and (ii) noted that the Bank restricted her from accessing it.^[35] Lawless, who had been on route to the Vassar Branch, claims to have immediately realized that he had mistakenly sent the text messages to Kaba and Henry instead of to his wife, and quickly responded, “Delete that.”^[36] At no point did Henry access the Website.^[37]

E. Disputed Facts Concerning the Events Subsequent to the Improper Texts.

Lawless testified that upon arriving at the Vassar Branch a short while later, he approached Kaba and Henry, who were standing next to each other, and asked them again to delete the text messages.^[38] While Kaba responded that she did delete the texts, Henry said that she would not.^[39]Lawless responded that he was embarrassed and that he did not intend the text messages for Henry and Kaba.^[40] He told Kaba to ask Henry to delete the text message, and then left the Vassar Branch to call Damyanidu to notify her of what had occurred.^[41] He claims that Damyanidu told him things would have to run their course and that he should go back inside and finish the day, which he did.^[42]

Henry testified that when Lawless “barged” into the Vassar Branch, he only approached her because Kaba was out on her lunch break.^[43] Lawless demanded she give him her phone, delete the texts he sent, and show him that she deleted them, which she refused.^[44] Henry testified that Lawless said he was embarrassed and that he did not mean the texts to go to her.^[45] Lawless wanted to speak with her alone but she refused to do so.^[46]

F. Undisputed Facts Concerning Henry's Call to the Ethics Hotline & Investigation.

By the time Lawless returned to the Vassar Branch after his call with Damyanidu, Henry had already told Barbini about the incident with Lawless and his requests that she delete the text messages.^[47] Barbini advised Henry to call the Bank's Ethics Hotline to report the incident, which she did that same day.^[48]

The following Monday, on August 17, 2015, the Bank's HR Director, Defendant McMichael, sent Damyanidu an email notifying her of Henry's call to the Hotline.^[49] Shortly after Damyanidu arrived at the Vassar Branch, she met with Henry to discuss the incident with Lawless.^[50] At Henry's request, Barbini was present for the meeting with Damyanidu.^[51] Henry described the incident to Damyanidu, who assured her that the Bank took the situation very seriously and would investigate the issue and take appropriate action.^[52] Damyanidu further advised that, in the event...