Doolittle v. Bloomberg L.P.

1

ABIGAIL DOOLITTLE, Plaintiff, v. BLOOMBERG L.P., et al., Defendants.

No. 22-cv-09136 (JLR)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

October 31, 2023

OPINION AND ORDER

JENNIFER L. ROCHON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

Abigail Doolittle (“Doolittle” or “Plaintiff”) brings this action against her current employer, Bloomberg L.P. (“Bloomberg”) and her colleague Mark Crumpton (“Crumpton” and together, “Defendants”), alleging sex discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 290 et seq. (the “NYSHRL”), and the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-101 et seq. (the “NYCHRL”). On July 31, 2023, Plaintiff submitted a motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint, seeking to add factual allegations to the present claims and assert new age-discrimination claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (the “ADEA”), the NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL. For the following reasons, Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

BACKGROUND^[1]

I. Factual Background

Since 2015, Doolittle has worked as an on-air correspondent for Bloomberg Television, a division of Bloomberg. See PAC ¶¶ 21, 87. In December 2018, Plaintiff's colleague Crumpton, also a Bloomberg Television employee, started making inappropriate comments to Doolittle. Id. ¶ 29. More than once, Crumpton suggested that Plaintiff go on vacation with him. Id. ¶ 30. He repeatedly commented on her clothing and appearance, id. ¶ 31, and once told Plaintiff an unwelcome sexual joke, id. ¶ 32. Crumpton also indicated in Doolittle's presence, through suggestive grunting, his strong sexual attraction to another female Bloomberg employee. Id. ¶ 34.

On or about December 1, 2020, while Plaintiff was conducting an on-air interview in the newsroom, she saw Crumpton, seated six feet away from her on set, staring at her while appearing to masturbate his genitals over his pants. Id. ¶ 37. Doolittle complained the next morning to one of her supervisors, telling him that she would “never sit on a set with Crumpton again” and that she “did not want Crumpton present on or near any set during her broadcasts.” Id. ¶ 39. The supervisor assured Doolittle that he would address her concerns. Id. The following day,^[2] Crumpton sat in the same seat across from Doolittle while she conducted a live television interview. Id. ¶ 40. Doolittle complained again to the supervisor, who replied that an executive producer had “spoke[n] with [Crumpton]” and that “[w]e should be all set.” Id. ¶ 41 (second alteration in original). Upon learning of Plaintiff's complaints about him, Crumpton took actions intended to retaliate against Plaintiff for her complaint and intimidate her from making additional complaints. Id. ¶ 43; see id. ¶¶ 42 (alleging that Crumpton “aggressively charge[d] the set” while Plaintiff was about to go on air), 50 (alleging instances where Crumpton stared intimidatingly at Plaintiff and feigned overly friendly greetings), 52 (alleging that Crumpton found excuses to appear in Plaintiff's vicinity).

“Simultaneous to the ‘masturbation incident' and its aftermath,” Bloomberg's then-Head of Global Television and Radio pressured Doolittle to reduce her airtime and instead to “Squawk” to Bloomberg's financial clients via the Bloomberg Terminal. Id. ¶ 57. This move would have meant that “a significantly younger female employee would . . . replace [Doolittle's] television role,” but Doolittle “politely declined the offer on a few occasions.” Id. Around December 6, 2020 - the week after the masturbation incident - another senior manager told Doolittle “forcefully” in a meeting that “she was not a team player” and that “she should really rethink her decision” not to reduce her airtime. Id. ¶ 58. At this time, Plaintiff was 47 years old and, “to her knowledge the oldest female television talent on Bloomberg's dayside television.” Id. ¶ 60. Upon Doolittle's information and belief, “the one veteran female television presenter at Bloomberg who was older than Plaintiff was abruptly dismissed and replaced by someone at least fifteen years her junior,” id. ¶ 8, “after being assigned to other, non-Bloomberg Television duties just a few months earlier,” id. ¶ 60.

In June and July 2021, Doolittle met with representatives from Human Resources (“HR”), to whom she reported the “masturbation incident” and the rest of Crumpton's behavior that she found “sexually harassing and retaliatory.” Id. ¶ 53; see id. ¶¶ 54-56. Immediately after the last of these meetings, “Bloomberg drastically reduced Plaintiff's airtime from five to eight news segments per day, to four (or fewer) news segments per day.” Id. ¶ 62. In October 2021, Bloomberg cancelled the “Smart Charts” segment that “had been under Plaintiff's purview” and told her to stop sending the “Morning Note” that she regularly sent each day to nearly 300 Bloomberg employees. Id. ¶ 73. Between November 2021 and January 2022, Doolittle also noticed a “cycling pattern” with her on-air time; some weeks, she was on air “just one to three times a day” while, “a few weeks later, it would increase to more than five hits.” Id. ¶ 75.

Meanwhile, Crumpton continued to harass and intimidate Doolittle. Id. ¶ 72. On March 28, 2022, Doolittle complained again to HR about Crumpton. Id. ¶ 77. HR declined to investigate Crumpton, stating that he was “just doing his job.” Id. ¶ 78. Over the next eleven months, Crumpton “inserted himself into Plaintiff's space on more than eighty occasions,” such as by “standing near Plaintiff's desk, . . . passing by the cameras while Plaintiff was on air, waiting for Plaintiff in the studio before she went on air, [and] standing on set and staring her down while she was on air.” Id. ¶ 79. Meanwhile, Plaintiff received “fewer and/or very uneven on-air segments than she had prior to her complaints.” Id. ¶ 81. Finally, Doolittle alleges that, in early 2023, she was assigned to cover real estate for Bloomberg Television, but, after identifying “high-quality real estate investors to interview,” she was “told that she needed to start the process in the print side of the company.” Id. ¶ 88.

To date, Plaintiff continues to work at Bloomberg. Id. ¶ 87. She alleges, however, that “her chances of advancement appear to be slim,” id., and that she has “hit a dead end” at Bloomberg due to harassment, discrimination, and retaliation, id. ¶ 89.

II. Procedural History

On October 1, 2021, Plaintiff filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”), alleging sex/gender discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation. See generally ECF No. 48-2 (“Original Charge”). On July 28, 2022, the EEOC 4 issued Plaintiff a Notice of Right to Sue. See generally ECF No. 1-1 (“Right to Sue”).

On October 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed her original Complaint against Defendants, claiming sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, the NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL. See generally ECF No. 1. On December 12, 2022, Defendants answered the Complaint. See ECF Nos. 15-16. The parties were referred to mediation, which proved unsuccessful in February 2023. See ECF Nos. 17, 20.

On July 31, 2023, Doolittle filed the instant motion to amend her Complaint. See ECF Nos. 42 (“Br.”), 47 (“Reply”). As the parties were briefing this motion, Plaintiff filed another charge with the EEOC on August 10, 2023, alleging age discrimination and retaliation. See generally ECF No. 48-1 (“New Charge”). The PAC now before the Court for consideration alleges additional age-discrimination violations under the ADEA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL. PAC ¶¶ 103-134. It also adds new allegations supplementing Doolittle's existing claims of sexual harassment and retaliation. See generally ECF No. 43-2 (redlining changes between original complaint and PAC). Defendants oppose the motion. See ECF Nos. 45 (“Bloomberg Opp.”), 46 (“Crumpton Opp.”). The motion is now fully briefed and presently before the Court.

III. Applicable Legal Standard

“Once a responsive pleading has been filed, [the] plaintiff may amend the complaint only with leave of court.” Cerni v. J.P. Morgan Secs. LLC, 208 F.Supp.3d 533, 543 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (citation omitted). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 15(a)(2), leave to amend a complaint shall be “freely” given “when justice so requires.” However, “it is within the sound discretion of the district court to grant or deny leave to amend.” McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184, 200 (2d Cir. 2007). Motions for leave to amend “should generally be denied in instances of futility, undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, or undue prejudice to the non-5 moving party.” Burch v. Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc., 551 F.3d 122, 126 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam). “An amendment to a pleading is futile if the proposed claim could not withstand a motion to dismiss pursuant to [Rule] 12(b)(6).” Lucente v. Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp., 310 F.3d 243, 258 (2d Cir. 2002).

Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Francis v. Kings Park Manor, Inc., 992 F.3d 67, 72 (2d Cir. 2021) (en banc) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 680 (2009)). The court draws all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor, and accepts as true all non-conclusory allegations of fact. Id. (citation omitted). However, a complaint must allege “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully” and more than “facts that are ‘merely consistent with' a defendant's liability.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 ...