Doe v. Jetblue Airways Corp.

JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2, Plaintiffs, v. JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION, ERIC JOHNSON,individually, and DAN WATSON, individually, Defendants.

19-CV-1542 (NGG) (CLP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

August 11, 2020

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS, United States District Judge.

Plaintiffs Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 bring this action against Defendants JetBlue Airways Corporation ("JetBlue"), Eric Johnson, and Dan Watson. Plaintiffs, who are JetBlue flight attendants, allege that while on layover at a hotel in San Juan, Puerto Rico on May 9, 2018, Defendants Johnson and Watson, who are JetBlue pilots, sexually assaulted or attempted to sexually assault them, and that JetBlue took no corrective action after Plaintiffs reported the incident. Plaintiffs assert claims of discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under federal, state, and local law against all Defendants as well as various tort claims against Johnson and Watson individually. Before the court are Defendants' motions to dismiss for improper venue, lack of jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim. (See JetBlue Mot. to Dismiss ("JetBlue Mot.") (Dkt. 34); Johnson Mot. to Dismiss ("Johnson Mot.") (Dkt. 30); Watson Mot. to Dismiss ("Watson Mot.") (Dkt. 35).) For the reasons that follow, the court agrees with Defendants that venue in the Eastern District of New York is improper, and transfers this case to the District of Massachusetts. The court defers decision on the merits of Defendants' motions to the transferee court.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Facts¹

Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 are JetBlue flight attendants based, at all relevant times, out of Boston. (See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 10-11; 14; see also Decl. of Michael Fiske ("Fiske Decl.") (Dkt. 34-2) at ¶¶ 9-10.)² On May 9, 2018, Plaintiffs worked a flight from Washington D.C. to San Juan, Puerto Rico, and then a returning flight the next morning to Newark, New Jersey. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 21, 48.) Plaintiffs arrived in San Juan around 1:00pm. (Id.) Upon arrival, Plaintiffs and a third crewmember checked in at their hotel and went to the beach. (Id. ¶ ¶ 22, 49.)

At the beach, Plaintiffs and the third crewmember noticed two men sitting near them pulling beers out of a lunch bag. (Id. ¶¶ 24, 51.) The two men were Defendants Johnson and Watson. (Id.) The two groups began talking, and Plaintiffs learned both men were JetBlue pilots. (Id.) Johnson and Watson were also based out of Boston at the time. (Fiske Decl. ¶ 14.) After some time, Johnson handed a beer from his lunch box to Jane Doe #1. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 25, 52.) Jane Doe #1 drank some of the beer then handed it to Jane Doe #2. (Id.) Jane Doe #2 then drank some of the beer and handed it to the third crewmember who also drank from it. (Id.) Plaintiffs assert the drink was laced witha drug, and after drinking it, the rest of the day became a blur for Plaintiffs and the third crewmember. (Id.)

Jane Doe #1 does not remember leaving the beach or returning to the hotel. (Id. ¶ 26.) The amended complaint describes Jane Doe #1's remaining memories of the night as follows:

[Jane Doe #1], in a haze from being drugged, next became aware that she was in bed with Defendant JOHNSON and her fellow crewmember. Defendant JOHNSON was on top of Plaintiff raping her by penetrating her vaginally against her will. Plaintiff felt the influence of the drug that Defendant JOHNSON laced the beer with, and Plaintiff was unable to react to the situation, but was simply aware that it was happening. Plaintiff's flashes of memory included Defendant JOHNSON having sexual intercourse with the other crewmember who was also under the influence of the drugs. Defendant JOHNSON also said, "thank you for making my fantasy come true."

(Id. ¶ 27.) When she awoke the next morning, Jane Doe #1 was "groggy and felt numb." (Id. ¶ 28.) She, along with Jane Doe #2 and the third crew member, "were all nauseous and each had to use the bathroom to vomit, an effect they had not felt before despite having consumed alcohol previously." (Id.) On the return trip to Newark, Jane Doe #1 "spoke with the third female crewmember who had also been drugged and raped, and they both expressed that they were stunned with what had happened." (Id.)

After drinking the beer on the beach, the next memory Jane Doe #2 had was being on the elevator at Plaintiffs' hotel in San Juan. (Id. ¶ 53.) She does not recall how she left the beach and got to the elevator, nor does she recall most of the night because of the drugs that she ingested, though she does remember vomiting several times throughout the night. (Id.) Plaintiffs assert that Johnson and Watson drugged and intended to rape Jane Doe #2,but refrained from doing so when she started vomiting. (Id. ¶ 54.) On May 10, 2018, Jane Doe #2 woke up nauseous, tired, and in an "out of body fog." (Id. ¶ 55.) She vomited repeatedly on the return flight home. (Id.) She further claims she had never felt such sleepiness and upon arrival at her hotel in Newark, she fell back asleep for an extended period. (Id.) It was not until three days later that Jane Doe #2 stopped feeling nauseous and foggy from the drugs. (Id. ¶ 57.)

Plaintiffs texted each other and met up in Jane Doe #2's hotel room upon returning to Newark. (Id. ¶¶ 30, 56.) The third crewmember later joined. (Id.) The three discussed what had occurred and the effects they felt from being drugged by Johnson and Watson, and researched "the symptoms of rape drugs and found the symptoms consistent with" how they felt after drinking Johnson and Watson's beer. (Id. ¶ 30.) They further discussed how Jane Doe #1 and third crewmember were sexually assaulted and raped by Johnson. (Id. ¶¶ 30, 56.) Jane Doe #1 asserts that she developed a fear that she may have contracted a sexually transmitted disease from Johnson, and she emailed Johnson and asked him to contact her. (Id. ¶ 29.) She later received an email back from Johnson saying he would get tested for sexually transmitted diseases. (Id. ¶ 31.)

On May 11, 2018, Jane Doe #1 returned home to Utah and went to the hospital where she reported that she had been sexually assaulted. (Id. ¶ 32.) She was tested for sexually transmitted diseases and given medication to help prevent them. (Id. ¶ 32.) Subsequently, the hospital reported the incident and the Utah police prepared a report. (Id.) Jane Doe #1 was soon informed by her doctor that she contracted Human Papillomavirus ("HPV"). (Id. ¶ 34.) Plaintiff had been tested for sextually transmitted diseases prior to the incident in Puerto Rico and hadtested negative. (Id.) She asserts that she could have only contracted HPV from Johnson and that he intentionally gave her the disease. (Id. ¶¶ 34-35.)

Plaintiffs allege that Jane Doe # 1 reported the sexual assault "to [JetBlue] at their corporate headquarters in New York" (id. ¶ 33), and that Jane Doe #2 reported the attempted sexual assault "to [JetBlue] in their New York headquarters," (id. ¶ 58). Plaintiffs allege neither when nor to whom they reported the incidents. In a declaration annexed to JetBlue's motion to dismiss, Michael Fiske, JetBlue's Regional Manager of Crew Relations based out of Boston, avers that: (1) on or about May 12, 2018, Jessica Diorio, a Boston-based JetBlue human resources employee, informed him that Jane Doe #1 had contacted her regarding the incident with Johnson, and (2) that JetBlue never received a report or complaint from Jane Doe #2 about the incident in Puerto Rico. (Fiske Decl. ¶¶ 17, 26.) JetBlue commenced an investigation into Jane Doe #1's allegation, which was conducted by Boston-based employees, including Fiske. (Id. ¶24.)

Plaintiffs assert that, despite making JetBlue aware of the incident in Puerto Rico, JetBlue took "no corrective action." (Am. Compl. ¶ 33.) This included failing to guarantee that Plaintiffs would not run into Johnson or Watson at work. (Id. ¶¶ 38, 61.) Plaintiffs further claim they were forced to affirmatively opt out of working Embraer E190 aircraft flights because Johnson and Watson would work those flights. (Id. ¶¶ 39, 62.) Avoiding these flights precludes Plaintiffs from working on more than 750 flights, which has a negative impact on their seniority status and financial opportunities.³ (Id.)

Plaintiffs also allege that the incident in Puerto Rico has affected their daily work experience. For example, Jane Doe #1 tries toavoid layovers in San Juan and avoids interacting with other crew members if she is scheduled for a layover in San Juan. (Id. ¶ 40.) She generally tries to avoid layovers and makes sure not to have more than one drink if she does. (Id. ¶ 41.) Further, Jane Doe #1 claims to avoid work lounges outside of New York and researches Johnson and Watson's flight schedules to make sure they do not overlap with her own. (Id. ¶ 42.) In or around February 2019, Jane Doe #2 ran into Johnson in an employee break room in San Juan. (Id. ¶ 63.) Jane Doe #2 was having lunch with fellow crew members, but immediately began to panic when she saw Johnson and immediately left the area. (Id.)

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' actions made them feel humiliated, degraded, victimized, embarrassed and emotionally distressed. (Id. ¶¶ 43, 64.) Plaintiffs claim they have suffered and will continue to suffer from loss of income, salary, bonuses, benefits, and other compensation which employment entails. (Id. ¶¶ 44, 65.) Furthermore, Plaintiffs claim pecuniary losses, emotional pain, humiliation, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, other non-pecuniary losses, severe emotional distress and physical distress. (Id.)

B. Procedural History

Plaintiffs filed their original complaint on March 18, 2019 (Compl. (Dkt. 1)), and their amended complaint on September 24, 2019. (Am. Compl.) Each Defendant has moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' amended complaint. JetBlue moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' amended complaint for improper venue and failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3), (6). (See JetBlue Mot.; Mem. in Supp. of...