Love v. Premier Util. Servs., LLC

186 F.Supp.3d 248

Aubrey Love, Paul Dunham, and Andrew Nelson, Plaintiffs,

v.Premier Utility Services, LLC and USIC Locating Services, LLC, Defendants.

15-cv-5698 (ADS)(AYS)

United States District Court, E.D. New York.

Signed May 13, 2016

Borelli & Associates PLLC, 1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328, Great Neck, NY 11021, By: Michael J. Borelli, Esq., Alexander T. Coleman, Esq., Of Counsel, Attorneys for the Plaintiffs.

Littler Mendelson PC, 290 Broadhollow Road, Suite 305, Melville, NY 11747, By: Amy L. Ventry-Kagan, Esq., Leslie M. DiBenedetto, Esq., Of Counsel, Attorneys for the Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER

SPATT, District Judge:

On October 1, 2015, the Plaintiffs Aubrey Love ("Love"), Paul Dunham ("Dunham"), and Andrew Nelson ("Nelson", together with Love and Dunham, the "Plaintiffs") commenced this civil rights action against their former employer, the Defendant Premier Utility Services, LLC ("Premier"), and its parent company USIC Locating Services, LLC ("USIC", together with Premier, the "Defendants"), alleging race-based employment discrimination and a racially hostile work environment, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (" § 1981") and relevant provisions of the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), N.Y. Exec. L. § 290 et seq.

Presently before the Court is motion by the Defendants, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Fed. R. Civ. P.") 12(b)(6), seeking to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. For the reasons that follow, the motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.

I. Background

Unless otherwise noted, the following facts are drawn from the complaint and are construed in favor of the Plaintiffs.

Premier is a New York corporation with a principal place of business in Hauppauge. See Compl. ¶ 6. Although the company was acquired in or about April 2015 by the Defendant USIC, Premier continues to be recognized by the New York State Division of Corporations as a discrete operating entity, and all of the relevant events alleged in the complaint occurred pre-acquisition. See id.¶ 7. Relevant here, Premier operates facilities in three New York locations: Queens, Brooklyn, and Hauppauge. See id.¶ 10.

The Plaintiffs are African American. See id.¶ 2. As employees of Premier, they were each assigned to work on manhole projects, which are allegedly considered "field positions" in that they are "physically taxing jobs that pay considerably less than Premier's office or management positions." See id.¶¶ 13-14. Allegedly, the majority of Premier employees assigned to work on manhole projects are African American, while the majority of employees working in "higher paying, less strenuous office or management positions" are Caucasian or non-African American. See id.¶¶ 15-16.

A. The Allegations Relating to the Plaintiff Aubrey Love

Love began his employment at Premier's Queens location on September 9, 2013. See id.¶ 11. In September 2014, he was allegedly transferred to the company's Hauppauge location in order to complete a so-called Damage Prevention Specialist training program (the "Training Program"). See id.¶ 17. Allegedly, the Hauppauge location was staffed predominantly by Caucasian employees. See id.

Approximately one week into his tenure at the Hauppauge location, Love parked his car in the front of the Premier building. See id.¶ 18. The company's Senior Director of Field Operations, one Edward Heaney, wrote Love a "fake parking ticket" and placed it on his vehicle's windshield. Id. The Plaintiffs allege that this was done "to make Mr. Love feel uncomfortable and unwelcome" because Heaney "did not want African Americans working in Hauppauge." Id. In this regard, it is alleged that Heaney "would openly and frequently refer to African American employees as ‘dumb niggers' " in Love's presence. Id.¶ 19.

Is it further alleged that, in late-September 2014, Love was assigned to report to a supervisor identified as "Mike K," who, according to the Plaintiffs, is "a self-proclaimed Ku Klux Klan member." Id.¶ 20. Mike K allegedly stated to Love that he "proudly flew a Confederate flag" in the front of his home. Id.¶ 21.

On one occasion in October 2014, Mike K allegedly made the following remark to Love: "Ed [Heaney] placed you with me in hopes that I would make you quit your job, but you're different. You're not like the other niggers." Id.¶ 23. He further stated that: "the definition of a ‘nigger’ is an ignorant person. You talk with sense. You're different than most niggers." Id.

On another occasion in January 2015, Heaney allegedly stated to two supervisors in Love's presence: "don't worry about those stupid niggers, they're going to fail" the Training Program. Id.¶ 24. He further stated that "[w]e don't need any niggers out here on [Long] Island representing Premier." Id.

On January 28, 2015, Love's employment was terminated. See id.¶ 25. The reason provided by Premier was that business had slowed, and Love was advised that he would be contacted for future work opportunities if and when business increased. See id. However, the company never contacted Love again. See id.

B. The Allegations Relating to the Plaintiff Paul Dunham

Dunham began his employment at Premier's Brooklyn location on July 24, 2014. See id.¶ 12. Similar to Love, Dunham was transferred from Premier's Brooklyn location in December 2014 to complete the Training Program in Hauppauge. See id.¶ 29.

Allegedly, in mid-January 2015, Dunham overheard Heaney remark to two other supervisors "don't worry about those stupid niggers, they're going to fail this [training] course. We don't need any niggers out here on [Long] Island representing Premier." Id.¶ 30.

Similar to Love, on or about January 24, 2015, Dunham was allegedly told that Premier's business had slowed and that his employment was being terminated. See id.¶ 31. Like Love, the company advised Dunham that it would contact him for future work opportunities, but never did. See id.

C. The Allegations Relating to the Plaintiff Andrew Nelson

Nelson also began his employment at Premier's Brooklyn location on July 24, 2014. See id.¶ 12. Similar to Love and Dunham, in December 2014 Nelson was transferred from Premier's Brooklyn location to complete the Training Program in Hauppauge. See id.¶ 26.

Allegedly, in mid-January 2015, Nelson was in a bathroom stall during a break period and overheard Heaney remark to another supervisor that "none of the niggers in the training program will end up representing the company." Id.¶ 27.

Similar to Love and Dunham, on January 24, 2015, Nelson's employment was terminated due to a purported downturn in business. See id.¶ 28. Again, Premier advised Nelson that the company would contact him for future work opportunities if and when business increased. See id. However, it never contacted him again. See id.

D. The Present Action

On these facts, the Plaintiffs allege causes of action based on racial discrimination and a racially hostile work environment, in violation of § 1981 and the NYSHRL.

On December 4, 2015, the Defendants moved under the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss the complaint, contending that the Plaintiffs' allegations, even if taken as true, fail to plausibly state claims upon which relief can be granted.

II. Discussion

A. The Standard of Review

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), a party may move to dismiss a cause of action that "fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." "To survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint must plead ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,’ Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007), and ‘allow[ ] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged,’ Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009)." Otis – Wisher v. Medtronic, Inc., 616 Fed.Appx. 433, 434 (2d Cir.2015).

B. As to Whether the Plaintiffs Have Stated Plausible Claims for Race-Based Employment Discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981

1. The Applicable Legal Standards

" Section 1981 prohibits intentional discrimination on the ground of race with respect to, inter alia , the enjoyment of the terms of employment." Skates v. Inc. Vill. of Freeport, No. 15–cv–1136, 2016 WL 1459659, at *14, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16564, at *42–*43 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2016) (Report and Recommendation), adopted, 2016 WL 1452391, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49634 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2016) (citing Patterson v. County of Oneida, New York, 375 F.3d 206, 224 (2d Cir.2004) ). Claims of racial discrimination under § 1981 are analyzed under the same standards used for claims of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.See id. at *15, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16564, at *43 (citations omitted).

In this regard, the Supreme Court has instructed that a Title VII plaintiff need not allege a prima facie case of discrimination in order to survive a motion to dismiss. SeeSwierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 510–11, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002) (noting that a plaintiff complaining of discrimination need not plead that he was a member of a protected class; was qualified for the position in question; and suffered an adverse employment action under circumstances supporting an inference of discrimination, as is normally required at the summary judgment stage under McDonnell Douglas).

Rather, "the ordinary rules for assessing the sufficiency of a complaint apply" to claims of racial discrimination, id. at 511, 122 S.Ct. 992 (quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974) ) (explaining that the "limited" task of a reviewing court under Rule 12(b)(6) is not to determine "whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims"), and "a plaintiff ‘need only give plausible support to a minimal inference of discriminatory...