Crosby v. Stew Leonard's Yonkers LLC

695 F.Supp.3d 551

Robert CROSBY, Jr., Plaintiff, v. STEW LEONARD'S YONKERS LLC and Stew Leonard, Jr., Defendants.

No. 22-CV-4907 (KMK)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

Signed September 28, 2023

Karen L. Mizrahi, Esq., Hertz Legal, PC, Croton-On-Hudson, NY, Counsel for Plaintiff.

Loraine M. Cortese-Costa, Esq., Law Offices of Loraine Cortese-Costa, Old Saybrook, CT, Counsel for Defendants.

OPINION & ORDER

KENNETH M. KARAS, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Robert Crosby, Jr. ("Plaintiff") brings this Action against Stew Leonard's Yonkers LLC ("Stew Leonard's Yonkers") and Stew Leonard, Jr., ("Leonard"; collectively, "Defendants"), alleging wrongful termination and discrimination based on Plaintiff's disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12132, et seq., discrimination and retaliation based upon Plaintiff's race, gender, and religion under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., disability discrimination under New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), New York Executive Law § 296, and various violations sounding in retaliation and interference with the exercise of rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654. (See Third Am. Compl. ("TAC") (Dkt. No. 52).)¹ Before the Court are Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the TAC and Motion to Strike portions of the TAC (collectively, the "Motions"). (See Not. of Mot. ("Not. of Mot. 1") (Dkt. No. 55); Not. of Mot. ("Not. of Mot. 2") (Dkt. No. 57).)² For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motions are granted in part and denied in part.

I. Background

A. Motion to Strike

As an initial matter, Defendants ask this Court to strike a series of paragraphs in Plaintiff's complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). (See Defs' Mem. 17-18.) Rule 12(f) provides in relevant part that "[t]he court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). "Federal courts have discretion in deciding whether to grant motions to strike." Capri Sun GmbH v. Am. Beverage Corp., 414 F. Supp. 3d 414, 423 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (quoting Orientview Techs. LLC v. Seven For All Mankind, LLC, No. 13-CV-538, 2013 WL 4016302, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 7, 2013)). "However, motions to strike under Rule 12(f) are generally 'disfavored and granted only if there is strong reason to do so.' " Sweigert v. Goodman, 18-CV-8653, 2021 WL 603069, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 16, 2021) (quoting Anderson News, L.L.C. v. Am. Media, Inc., No. 09-CV-2227, 2013 WL 1746062, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2013)).

The Second Circuit has instructed that "ordinarily" a district court should not "decide to strike a portion of the complaint on the grounds that the material could not possibly be relevant on the sterile field of the pleadings alone." Lipsky v. Commonwealth United Corp., 551 F.2d 887, 893 (2d Cir. 1976); see also Frio Energy Partners, LLC. v. Finance Tech. Leverage, LLC, 680 F.Supp.3d 322, 352-53 (S.D.N.Y. June 27, 2023) (quoting Lipsky). "Usually the questions of relevancy and admissibility in general require the context of an ongoing and unfolding trial in which to be properly decided." Id.; see also Beatie & Osborn LLP v. Patriot Sci. Corp., 431 F. Supp. 2d 367, 398 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) ("The Second Circuit has made clear that district courts should be wary when deciding whether to grant a Rule 12(f) motion on the ground that the matter is impertinent and immaterial."). "[T]o prevail on a Rule 12(f) motion to strike, the movant must show '(1) no evidence in support of the allegations would be admissible; (2) the allegations have no bearing on the relevant issues; and (3) permitting the allegations to stand would result in prejudice to the movant.' " Lynch v. Southampton Animal Shelter Found., Inc., 278 F.R.D. 55, 63 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (quoting Roe v. City of New York, 151 F. Supp. 2d 495, 510 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)); see also Porsch v. LLR, Inc., 380 F. Supp. 3d 418, 429 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) ("Motions to strike under Rule 12(f) 'should be denied unless the challenged allegations have no possible relation or logical connection to the subject matter of the controversy and may cause some form of significant prejudice to one or more of the parties to the action.' ").

Here, Defendants have asked the Court to strike paragraphs 46 through 59 of Plaintiff's complaint, because "[t]he only possible motivation for including the allegations appears to be to defame and embarrass the corporate and individual Defendants." (Defs' Mem. 18.) The allegations can be categorized as follows: (1) Plaintiff's identification of an Orthodox Jewish Cemetery on Stew Leonard's Yonkers property, (see TAC ¶¶ 46-48); and (2) Defendants' response to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and Plaintiff's allegations regarding working conditions at Stew Leonard's Yonkers during the pandemic, (see id. ¶¶ 49-59). In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the allegations "are relevant and pertinent to illustrate [P]laintiff's concerns about the hostile racist, sexist[,] and antisemitic work environment created by Defendants" as well as relevant to Plaintiff's "work-related PTSD." (Mem. of Law in Opp. to Mot. ("Pl.'s Opp.") 20 (Dkt. No. 62).)

As to the first category of allegations, it is clear that these allegations "have no bearing on the relevant issues" and would prejudice the Defendants. Lynch, 278 F.R.D. at 63. Even construing Plaintiff's allegations liberally, these three allegations have no relevance to Plaintiff's other allegations regarding an antisemitic work environment. At best, these allegations describe an alleged "coverup" of a burial site, but there are no allegations that connect such activities to antisemitic behavior. Accordingly, the Court grants Defendants' motion to strike paragraphs 46, 47, and 48 of the TAC.

However, as to the second set of allegations, the Court denies Defendants' motion. While the Court agrees with Defendants that Plaintiff offers "scant evidence in [his] pleadings" that these categories are relevant to Plaintiff's claims, the Court cannot find that Plaintiff's allegations, taken as true, have no potential bearing on the issues in this case. See Li v. China Merchants Bank Co., Ltd., No. 22-CV-9309, 2023 WL 2955293, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2023). Indeed, several of Plaintiff's most significant allegations revolve around Defendants' handling of Plaintiff's COVID-19 diagnosis during the course of his employment, and his later termination allegedly due to complications related to COVID-19. (See generally TAC.) Importantly, Plaintiff alleges that he complained to HR and managers over Defendants' treatment of the COVID-19 crisis, complaints which he states were "dismissed." (Id. ¶¶ 54-59.) Moreover, the Court does not find that the inclusion of the paragraphs at issue would prejudice Defendants. "Courts have found allegations to be prejudicial when they are 'amorphous, unspecific and cannot be defended against' and where the allegations, if publicized, 'harm [the defendant] in the public eye and could influence prospective jury members.' " Low v. Robb, No. 11-CV-2321, 2012 WL 173472, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 20, 2012) (quoting G-I Holdings, Inc. v. Baron & Budd, 238 F. Supp. 2d 521, 556 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)). Defendants assert broadly that "[t]he only possible motivation for including the allegations appears to be to defame and embarrass the corporate and individual Defendants." (Defs' Mem. 18). The Court has found that these allegations could be relevant to Plaintiff's various discrimination claims on the basis of his COVID-19 diagnosis. "Absent more, . . . the Court finds that keeping the paragraphs in the Complaint would not prejudice Defendants." Li, 2023 WL 2955293, at *4.

Accordingly, the Court denies Defendants' motion to strike paragraphs 49-59. See id. at *3-4 (granting a motion for reconsideration of a motion to strike); Lipsky, 551 F.2d at 893 ("[O]rdinarily neither a district court nor an appellate court should decide to strike a portion of the complaint on the grounds that the material could not possibly be relevant on the sterile field of the pleadings alone"); Ambac Assur. Corp. v. EMC Mortg. Corp., No. 08-CV-9464, 2009 WL 734073, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2009) (denying motion to strike certain allegations because they "may bear" on plaintiff's claims).

B. Factual Background

The following facts are drawn from the Complaint and are assumed to be true for the purposes of resolving the instant Motion. See Div. 1181 Amalgamated Transit Union-N.Y. Emps. Pension Fund v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., 9 F.4th 91, 94 (2d Cir. 2021) (per curiam).

Plaintiff is a male resident of Orange County in New York, who began working at Stew Leonard's Yonkers as a "Loss Prevention Manager" in February 2001, earning $97,359.78 per year at the time of Plaintiff's termination in September 2021. (TAC ¶¶ 13, 16-17, 22-23.)³ Stew Leonard's Yonkers is a 120,000 square-foot grocery store in Yonkers, New York. (Id. ¶ 14.) Defendant Leonard is a resident of Westport, Connecticut, and is the CEO of Stew Leonard's Yonkers. (Id. ¶ 15.) Plaintiff alleges that at all times relevant to this Action, Leonard "held supervisory authority over Plaintiff," including the authority to "discipline, hire, fire, affect and/or influence the terms and conditions of Plaintiff's employment." (Id. ¶ 18.)

1. Allegations of Discrimination During Plaintiff's Employment

Plaintiff alleges that, while Stew Leonard's Yonkers "prides itself as a farm-fresh, family friendly place to work and shop," Defendants "repeatedly mistreated, ignored, threatened, bullied, and discriminated against" Plaintiff during the course of his employment. (Id. ¶¶ 26-27.) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that he and his co-workers "were subjected to a discriminatory workplace environment that was riddled with systemic racism, sexism, [and] anti[ ]semitism, to which Plaintiff repeatedly and continually opposed." (Id. ¶ 28....