Gangadharan v. GNS Goods & Servs.

1

MARGARITA GANGADHARAN, Plaintiff, v. GNS GOODS AND SERVICES, et al, Defendants.

No. 18-cv-7342 (KAM)(MMH)

United States District Court, E.D. New York

March 18, 2022

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

KIYO A. MATSUMOTO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Margarita Gangadharan (“Plaintiff”) commenced the instant action against Defendants GNS Goods and Services, GNS Industries Inc., GNS, Gilmer Law Firm PLLC, George Hill George Gilmer, Nafeesah “Karen” Hines, and Joshua Niland (together, “Defendants”), pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”) N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 290 et seq., and the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”), N.Y.C Admin. Code §§ 8-107 et seq., alleging discrimination, harassment, hostile work environment, and retaliation based on her sex, gender, and legally protected complaints. (See generally ECF No. 54, Amended Complaint (“Amended Compl.”).) Plaintiff also alleges failure to pay regular and overtime wages, and retaliation, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., and the New York Labor Laws (“NYLL”) Art. 19 §§ 650 et seq. (See generally Amended Compl.)

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's renewed motion for default judgment, seeking entry of judgment as to liability against Defendants GNS Goods and Services, GNS Industries Inc., and GNS (“GNS Defendants”). (See ECF No. 133, Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (“Motion”).) For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED against GNS Defendants as to liability for Plaintiff's Title VII and NYSHRL hostile environment and retaliation claims, NYCHRL discrimination and retaliation claims, and violations of the FLSA and the NYLL for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages and for retaliation.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff commenced the instant action on December 25, 2018, alleging violations of Title VII, the NYSHRL, the NYCHRL, the FLSA and the NYLL, and seeking damages, attorney's fees, and costs, with interest. (See ECF No. 1, Complaint (“Compl.”).) The following alleged facts are taken from the Amended Complaint, the instant motion, and the supporting affirmation, which the Court treats as true for purposes of considering the instant motion. (See Amended Compl.; Motion; ECF No. 134, Affirmation in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (“Affirmation”).)

I. Factual Background

Defendant GNS Industries Inc. is a domestic corporation d/b/a GNS and GNS Goods and Services. (Amended Compl. ¶¶ 9, 12‒ 13.) At all times relevant to this action, GNS Defendants maintained an office at 300 Cadman Plaza East, 12th Floor, Brooklyn, NY 11201. (Id. ¶ 14.) At all times relevant to this action, GNS Defendants employed fifteen or more staff members, had operating revenues in excess of $500, 000.00, and engaged in interstate commerce. (Id. ¶¶ 16‒18.)

On or around January 27, 2017, Plaintiff interviewed with GNS Defendants, which serve as an employment agency. (Id. ¶¶ 43‒44.) Defendants George Hill and Nafeesah “Karen” Hines, who are GNS Defendants' Director and Operations Manager, respectively, conducted Plaintiff's interview. (Id. ¶¶ 44‒47.) On or around the same day, Defendant Hines gave Plaintiff wage forms to complete to be hired as a “1099 worker.” (Id. ¶ 48.) On or around January 31, 2017, Plaintiff was assigned to work for Defendant Gilmer Law Firm PLLC (“Gilmer Law Firm”) as a paralegal. (Id. ¶¶ 49‒50.) At Gilmer Law Firm, Plaintiff worked for Defendant George Gilmer and nonparty Steve Rabiz, who are both attorneys. (Id. ¶¶ 51‒54)

Plaintiff's hourly wage was around $10.50, and she worked approximately fifty hours about five days a week. (Id. ¶¶ 55‒56, 62.) GNS Defendants and Gilmer Law Firm (together “Defendant Companies”) “classified [Plaintiff] as a 1099 independent contractor, ” (id. ¶ 57), but “[i]n reality, [Plaintiff] was Defendant Companies' employee.” (Id. ¶ 58.) Defendant Companies set Plaintiff's work schedule, gave her work assignments, and Defendant Hines was one of Plaintiff's direct supervisors. (Id. ¶¶ 59‒61.) Plaintiff used Defendant Gilmer's computer to perform work, and Gilmer Law Firm linked Plaintiff's personal computer to the firm's computer system, which allowed Plaintiff to communicate with clients directly using her personal computer. (Id. ¶¶ 63‒65.)

For Plaintiff's first month of work, she worked approximately forty hours per week and was paid $400 in cash for the entire month. (Id. ¶¶ 66‒68.) When Plaintiff asked Defendant Hines “where the rest of her pay was, ” Hines told her that “she had to work for 1 month without being paid for all weeks that she worked.” (Id. ¶¶ 70‒71.) Plaintiff complained that Defendant Companies still owed Plaintiff her earned wages, not including overtime pay. (Id. ¶ 72.) Around the end of February or beginning of March 2017, Plaintiff had a meeting with Defendants Hill and Hines, during which Defendant Hill told Plaintiff that Defendant Companies could not pay her any more money and that “it was not in the budget that [he had] arranged with Defendant Gilmer.” (Id. ¶¶ 73‒75.) Plaintiff complained that she was still owed her earned wages, not including overtime pay, at which Defendant Hill responded that Plaintiff was an at-will employee and could be fired at any time. (Id. ¶¶ 76‒77.)

Beginning in or around March 2017 to April 2017, Plaintiff worked over fifty hours per week for Defendant Companies, from 9 a.m. to approximately 8 p.m. or later, for five to six days. (Id. ¶¶ 78‒79.) Defendant Companies paid Plaintiff only $420 in cash per week. (Id. ¶ 80.) In or around March 2017, Plaintiff told Defendants Hill and Hines that Defendant Companies needed to pay her for all the hours that she worked, (id. ¶ 81), to which Defendant Hill responded that “he could not take money out of attorney Rabiz' budget to pay [Plaintiff]” and that New York is an at-will state and she could be fired at any time. (Id. ¶¶ 82, 84.) Defendant Companies still owe Plaintiff overtime pay for approximately forty hours. (Id. ¶ 90.)

On or around April 15, 2017, Defendant Hines gave Plaintiff a new employment contract, which stated that Plaintiff had been a “W2 employee” since her January 2017 hire date. (Id. ¶¶ 85‒86.) Defendants Hill and Hines told Plaintiff that she owed taxes to Defendant Companies and that Defendant Companies were going to deduct back taxes and other payments from her paychecks. (Id. ¶¶ 87‒88.) Plaintiff complained that Defendant Companies were engaging in illegal activities. (Id. ¶ 89.)

In or around middle of May 2017, Defendant Joshua Niland, one of Defendant Companies' staff members, was having trouble clocking into Defendant Companies' electronic timekeeping system. (Id. ¶¶ 92‒93.) Defendant Niland “started banging on [a] table, ” and another staff member, Jardana Dahlal, started laughing. (Id. ¶¶ 94‒96.) Niland said to Ms. Dahlah, “Shut the Fuck up, Bitch.” (Id. ¶ 97.) Ms. Dahlal called Defendant Hill on the telephone. (Id. ¶ 98.)

On or around the same day, Defendant Hill called Plaintiff into a meeting with him and Defendant Niland, and during the meeting, Defendant Hill stated that Ms. Dahlal probably would not return to work. (Id. ¶¶ 99‒104.) Defendant Hill told Defendant Niland that he would be allowed to come back to work after taking a few days off. (Id. ¶ 105.) Plaintiff told Defendant Hill that she was not comfortable working with Defendant Niland due to the way he behaved toward women and that “there was a hostile work environment.” (Id. ¶¶ 106‒07.) Defendant Hill told Plaintiff that New York is an employment-at-will state and that she could be fired at any time. (Id. ¶¶ 108‒09.)

In or around June 2017, approximately a week and a half after the meeting with Defendants Hill and Niland, Defendant Hill told Plaintiff that a co-worker could call her a “Bitch.” (Id. ¶ 110.) Defendant Hill said to Plaintiff that calling her a “Bitch” was not discrimination, just “bad words.” (Id. ¶¶ 111‒12.) Defendant Hill also reminded Plaintiff that she could be fired at any time. (Id. ¶ 113.)

In or around July 2017, Defendant Companies hired three women for their Summer Youth Employment Program, and one of the three women, Rhonda (last name unknown), was Muslim. (Id. ¶¶ 114‒ 15.) Sometime in July 2017, Defendant Hill had a meeting with the three Summer Youth Employees and Plaintiff, during which Defendant Hill said to the three Summer Youth Employees that being called a “Bitch” is not discrimination. (Id. ¶¶ 116‒17.) Defendant Hill then looked directly at Rhonda and said that even being called a “Muslim Bitch” is not discrimination. (Id. ¶¶ 118‒19.) Defendant Hill also stated that “this is not a hostile work environment.” (Id. ¶ 120.) Plaintiff complained about Defendant Hill's conduct. (Id. ¶ 121.)

At or around the end of September 2017, Defendant Hill told Plaintiff to take a couple weeks off from work until her new office placement. (Id. ¶ 122.) At that time, Plaintiff, Defendant Hines, and another individual named Michelle (last name unknown) were the only staff members present in the office. (Id. ¶ 123.) Hines and Michelle continued to work in the office. (Id. ¶ 124.) As of the date of the filing of the Amended Complaint, October 8, 2019, Defendant Companies had not contacted Plaintiff for a new office assignment. (Id. ¶ 125.)

II. Procedural Background

Plaintiff commenced the instant action on December 25, 2018, after receiving a Notice of Right to Sue from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), dated September 28, 2018. (See Compl.; Amended Compl. ¶¶ 37‒38.) On October 8, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, (see Amended Compl.), and GNS Defendants and Defendant George Hill^[1] filed their Answer on November 12, 2019. (S...