Brandenburg v. Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of N. Am.

ELIZABETH BRANDENBURG et al., Plaintiffs, v. GREEK ORTHODOX ARCHDIOCESE OF NORTH AMERICA et al., Defendants.

20-CV-3809 (JMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

June 1, 2021

OPINION AND ORDER

JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge:

Plaintiffs Elizabeth Brandenburg and Maria Kallis worked as "sanctified nuns" at a monastery operated by the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North America (the "Archdiocese"). Invoking the Court's diversity jurisdiction, they bring this suit against the Archdiocese and several of its clergy members, including Father Gerasimos Makris, Archbishop Demetrios Trakatellis ("Archbishop Demetrios"), Bishop Allen Paropoulos ("Bishop Andonios"), and Charlene Asquith ("Mother Eisodia"). They allege discrimination, retaliation, and civil rights claims under the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), N.Y. Exec. Law § 290 et seq.; the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"), N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-101 et seq.; and the New York Civil Rights Law ("Civil Rights Law"), N.Y. Civ. Rights Law §§ 40-c, 40-d. Plaintiffs also bring a defamation claim under New York law and claims for unpaid wages under the New York Labor Law and its supporting regulations (collectively, "NYLL"), N.Y. Lab. Law § 650 et seq.; 12 N.Y.C.R.R. §§ 142-2.1, 142-2.2. Defendants now move, pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to dismiss all of Plaintiffs' claims. For the reasons that follow, Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.

BACKGROUND

The following facts, drawn from the Amended Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"), see ECF No. 18 ("Am. Compl."), are assumed to be true for the purposes of this motion. See, e.g., Kleinman v. Elan Corp., 706 F.3d 145, 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2013).

Plaintiffs are sanctified nuns within the Greek Orthodox faith who resided and worked at the All Saints Monastery in Calverton, New York, from 2010 to 2018. Long before that, beginning in 2003 and 2004, they attended Hellenic College-Holy Cross in Massachusetts, where they first met Father Makris. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 23-24. Father Makris, who served as Chaplain and Dean of Students at the time, became Plaintiffs' "Spiritual Father." Id. ¶¶ 22-24. In the Greek Orthodox faith, "a 'Spiritual Father' . . . is someone who guides his 'Spiritual Children' in their faith and teaches them how to be close to God." Id. ¶ 25.

In or about March 2004, a male student at Hellenic College-Holy Cross sexually assaulted Brandenburg. Id. ¶ 26. The male student confessed to Father Makris, but instead of reporting the incident to law enforcement or launching an investigation, Father Makris "made" Brandenburg "marry her attacker in order to cure the sexual assault." Id. ¶¶ 26, 28-29. During the marriage, Brandenburg's husband regularly subjected her to physical abuse and threats, sometimes in front of Father Makris. See id. ¶ 30. After several pleas from Brandenburg for help, Makris eventually allowed her to divorce her husband in 2009. See id. ¶ 38.

In 2010, Brandenburg and Kallis became nuns and helped Father Makris found the All Saints Monastery. Id. ¶¶ 40-41. The Archdiocese appointed Father Makris the Spiritual Father for the new Monastery. Id. ¶ 41. Plaintiffs' duties at the Monastery included running Mass services, singing in Mass services, speaking to students at the parochial school, and tending to various administrative tasks such as cleaning and maintaining account books. See id. ¶¶ 20, 33.Plaintiffs lived at the Monastery, but they often traveled to the five boroughs of New York City to perform their duties. See id. ¶¶ 2-3, 20-21. Notably, although Plaintiffs were given the formal title of "nuns," they "were referred to and considered as 'laypeople' by the Archdiocese." Id. ¶ 20. Unlike the male clergy, they were not paid for their work. Id. ¶¶ 20, 32, 34.

Plaintiffs allege that, between 2003 and 2017, Father Makris "subjected" them "to various acts of sexual harassment he termed 'fatherly affection.'" Id. ¶ 42. These acts ranged from Father Makris telling Plaintiffs that they would make "cute nuns" to stroking their hair, forcibly giving them full-body hugs, kissing them, and brushing his genitals against their bodies. See id. Many of these incidents occurred while Plaintiffs were students at Hellenic College-Holy Cross, but some occurred during their time working as nuns at the Monastery. See id. For example, through April 2017, Father Makris would wink or smirk at Plaintiffs while grazing their arms and legs; in March 2017, Father Makris pressed Kallis against a car while squeezing her leg; and Makris subjected Plaintiffs to unwanted and offensive kisses and full-body hugs, which, at least for Brandenburg, continued through October 2017. Id.

In October 2017, Plaintiffs complained to Bishop Andonios about Father Makris's misconduct. Id. ¶ 45. Thereafter, their interactions with the Archdiocese soured. On January 25, 2018, for example, Bishop Andonios's assistant informed Brandenburg by phone that he and the Bishop were considering sending Plaintiffs to Greece to become "real nuns" in response to their complaints. Id. ¶ 47. Bishop Andonios made the same threat to Kallis on February 12, 2018. Id. ¶ 48. On or about March 30, 2018, Plaintiffs met with Archbishop Demetrios to follow up on their complaints. Id. ¶ 50. Archbishop Demetrios dismissed them, telling Plaintiffs that he did not want them to call themselves "victim[s]" and that he did not want "anything negative to be attached to the monastery." Id. In the spring and summer of 2018, Plaintiffslearned that parishioners had been instructed not to help or visit them and that they would no longer be welcome at another parish in New York. See id. ¶¶ 49, 51, 54.

In or about September 2018, the Archdiocese purported to convene a spiritual court to investigate Plaintiffs' complaints about Father Makris. Id. ¶ 56. The Archdiocese invited Kallis to the hearing, but she was not able to attend on the scheduled date. Id. She asked to reschedule, but she never heard back from the Archdiocese. Id. Brandenburg also asked to attend the hearing, but she did not hear back from the Archdiocese either. Id. Plaintiffs allege that the spiritual court never actually convened, that Father Makris returned to his prior role, and that the Archdiocese did nothing to prevent further sexual harassment. See id. ¶ 57.

In November 2018, Plaintiffs left the All Saints Monastery. Id. ¶ 58. That same month, Mother Eisodia began working at the Monastery as the Abbess or Head Nun. Id. ¶ 59. After Plaintiffs left, Mother Eisodia told current and potential parishioners that Plaintiffs had "left in the middle of the night and stole a car that belongs to the Monastery." Id. ¶ 61. She also reported the purported theft to the local police. Id. ¶ 62. In March 2019, however, the police informed Mother Eisodia that the car had not actually been stolen and that Plaintiffs, in fact, owned the car. Id. ¶ 63. Nevertheless, Mother Eisodia continued through the end of the year to tell current and potential parishioners that Plaintiffs had stolen the car. Id. ¶¶ 62-63. In April 2019, she also told police that Kallis was no longer allowed in the Convent "because of all the bad things" she had done. Id. ¶ 67.

LEGAL STANDARDS

In evaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a court must accept all facts set forth in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. See, e.g., Burchv. Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc., 551 F.3d 122, 124 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam).¹ A claim will survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, however, only if the plaintiff alleges facts sufficient "to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). A plaintiff must show "more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully," id., and cannot rely on mere "labels and conclusions" to support a claim, Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. If the plaintiff's pleadings "have not nudged [his or her] claims across the line from conceivable to plausible, [the] complaint must be dismissed." Id. at 570.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs bring five claims for discrimination or retaliation under the NYSHRL, the NYCHRL, and the New York Civil Rights Law, including retaliation (First Cause of Action), hostile work environment sexual harassment (Second Cause of Action), "sexual harassment constructive discharge" (Third Cause of Action), gender discrimination (Fifth Cause of Action), and corresponding claims under the Civil Rights Law (Sixth Cause of Action). They also bring claims under the NYLL (Seventh Cause of Action) and defamation claims (Fourth Cause of Action). The Court will begin with Plaintiffs' discrimination and retaliation claims before turning to their other sets of claims.

A. Discrimination and Retaliation Claims

First, Plaintiffs bring claims of retaliation, hostile work environment, constructive discharge, and gender discrimination under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL, see Am. Compl. ¶¶ 68-87, 94-99, and corresponding claims under the Civil Rights Law, see id. ¶¶ 100-04. Defendants move to dismiss some, but not all, of these claims — namely, the retaliation, constructive discharge, and gender discrimination claims — on the ground that they are barred by a First Amendment doctrine known as "the ministerial exception" to employment-discrimination laws. See ECF No. 22 ("Defs.' Mem."), at 4-13, 20. Separately, they move to dismiss Plaintiffs' NYCHRL claims on the ground that the statute does not apply to conduct outside of New York City, see id. at 15-19, and the hostile work environment claims as time-barred, see id. at 13-15. The Court will address each of these arguments in turn.²

1. ...