Marquez v. Hoffman

ALEXIS MARQUEZ, Plaintiff, v. DOUGLAS HOFFMAN, ET AL., Defendants.

18-CV-7315 (ALC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

March 31, 2021

OPINION & ORDER

ANDREW L. CARTER, JR., District Judge:

Plaintiff Alexis Marquez (hereinafter, "Plaintiff" or "Ms. Marquez") brings this action against Hons. Saliann Scarpulla, George Silver, Lawrence Marks and Lori Sattler in their individual capacities; John McConnell, Lauren DeSole, Kay-Ann Porter, Lisa Evans, Denis Reo and Lucian Chalfen in their individual capacities; Hons. Eugene Fahey, Paul Feinman, Michael Garcia, Jenny Rivera, Leslie Stein, and Rowan Wilson (collectively, "Court of Appeals Judges") in their individual capacities; Chief Judge Janet DiFiore, in her individual capacity and in her capacity as Chief Judge of New York State; and the State of New York (collectively, "Defendants")¹ for discriminatory treatment, harassment, retaliation, and due process and equal protection violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("§ 1983"), the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. L. §§ 290 et seq. ("NYSHRL"), the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.City Admin. Code §§ 8-101 et seq. ("NYCHRL"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), Article VI § 28(c) of the New York Constitution ("Article VI § 28(c)"), and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Plaintiff also asserts claims for fraud, fraudulent inducement, defamation, promissory estoppel, quantum meruit, and unjust enrichment.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff commenced this action on August 13, 2018. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on November 5, 2018. ECF No. 43. Defendants filed a request for a pre-motion conference, ECF No. 64, which was granted, ECF No. 67. As a result of the pre-motion conference held on April 1, 2019, Plaintiff was granted leave to amend her Complaint and the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Gorenstein. ECF No. 68. Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on April 22, 2019. ECF No. 72. Defendants then filed a letter motion seeking leave to file a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 76, which was granted, ECF No. 78. Magistrate Judge Gorenstein held an initial pretrial conference on May 16, 2019 and granted Plaintiff leave to file a Third Amended Complaint to "allege that a new entity or entities are the plaintiff's employer and to add such entity or entities as defendants." Minute Entry, May 16, 2019. Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint ("TAC") on May 21, 2019. ECF No. 86. On August 7, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's TAC. ECF No. 121. The Court denied Defendants' pending motion to dismiss to provide Defendants with an opportunity to account for Hon. Hoffman's dismissal from the case. ECF No. 228. Defendants refiled their motion to dismiss the TAC and supporting memorandum of law on March 6, 2020 ("Defs.' Mot."). ECF Nos. 236, 238. Plaintiff filed her opposition on June 5, 2020 ("Pl. Opp."). ECF No. 247. Defendants replied to Plaintiff's opposition on August 13, 2020. ECF No. 255.

Defendants' motion is deemed fully briefed. After careful consideration, Defendants' motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

BACKGROUND²

A. Prior To Working for Hon. Hoffman

From August 2012 through September 2017, Ms. Marquez served as a law clerk to Hon. Scarpulla, a New York State Supreme Court Justice. TAC ¶¶ 1, 182. In August 2017, Plaintiff and Hon. Scarpulla were informed that her term as a law clerk would come to an end in approximately four months. Hanna Decl. Ex. B at 1.³ The first position presented to Ms. Marquez was as Hon. Hoffman's principal court attorney. Id. Hon. Hoffman is a New York State Acting Supreme Court Justice serving in the Matrimonial Division. TAC ¶¶ 2, 46. Hon. Hoffman interviewed her on August 16, 2017 and called to offer her the position approximately two weeks later. Hanna Decl. Ex. B at 1-2. Ms. Marquez accepted.

B. Working for Hon. Hoffman

On September 13, 2017, Ms. Marquez began working for Hon. Hoffman as his principal court attorney. TAC ¶¶ 43, 47. According to Plaintiff, from the outset of her employment withHon. Hoffman, he engaged in behaviors that made her "acutely uncomfortable." Id. ¶ 48. This included relentlessly engaging Plaintiff in "personal inquiries and conversation beyond any ordinary or reasonable degree," id. ¶ 57, repeatedly subjecting Plaintiff to "bizarre, off-color, stereotypical, or offensive comments, jokes and non-sequiturs," id. ¶ 61, and repeatedly making "negative or insulting remarks about the professional capabilities of female staff and employees," id. ¶¶ 62-63.

On Sunday, October 8, 2017, Hon. Hoffman sent Plaintiff an email to Plaintiff's personal email address, which Ms. Marquez responded to by requesting that he please not email her at her personal email address, or on the weekend generally unless it was an emergency. Id. ¶¶ 92-93; see also Hanna Decl. Ex. B at 8. When Hon. Hoffman and Ms. Marquez were next in the office together on October 10, 2017, Hon. Hoffman brought up Plaintiff's email and told her that it was "extremely rude" and "very disrespectful" and that "he could not believe Plaintiff would send him an email like that" and that she should have talked to him about the issue in person instead of putting it in writing. TAC ¶¶ 95, 97-99. Hon. Hoffman told her she should have thanked him for his email and that he was "personally offended." Id. ¶¶ 100-101. He complained that he was not allowed to contact Plaintiff outside of work except in a "life or death emergency." Id. ¶ 104. Plaintiff told Hon. Hoffman that she had sent him the email in order to "communicate a personal boundary" and that she had not intended to offend him. Id. ¶ 106. Hon. Hoffman said that he would "just have to get used to the reality that . . . this [was] going to be a strictly professional relationship. This may not work out." Id. ¶ 108. After this conversation between Plaintiff and Hon. Hoffman, Hon. Hoffman avoided Plaintiff almost entirely. Id. ¶ 117.

On October 16, 2017, Hon. Scarpulla summoned Ms. Marquez to her chambers and asked her what had happened with Hon. Hoffman. Id. ¶ 183. Plaintiff told Hon. Scarpulla that Hon.Hoffman was very bothered by the fact that he could only have a professional relationship with her and that he had made her feel uncomfortable. Id. ¶¶ 184-85. As part of this conversation, Hon. Scarpulla told Ms. Marquez that she had two principal court attorney positions in mind for her but would not disclose what they were except to say that they were "real" positions. Id. ¶ 188.

On October 18, 2017, at approximately 4:30 P.M., Hon. Hoffman spoke to Plaintiff and told her that "[s]ometimes it doesn't work out between a judge and a law clerk, even if they both want it to." Id. ¶¶ 125, 128-29. Hon. Hoffman told Plaintiff he had spoken to Deputy Chief Administrative Judge Silver, who had told him that "what happens in this situation—whenever there is a professional mismatch between a judge and a law clerk—is that they don't fire the law clerk immediately, but they give them a few weeks to find a transfer." Id. ¶¶ 134-35. He told Ms. Marquez that Hon. Silver wanted to hire her as his own principal court attorney and that Hon. Silver wanted her to call him to "arrange the transfer." Id. ¶¶ 136, 138. Hon. Hoffman also told her that "he had the right to fire her immediately and to have a court officer escort her out of the building but that he would not do that if Plaintiff agreed not to say anything about him" and instead would "allow her to continue working for a couple of weeks and arrange a transfer." Id. ¶¶ 139-40. Hon. Hoffman asked for Plaintiff's word not to say anything about him and told her he would not say anything about her if she would not say anything about him. Id. ¶¶ 141-42. Ms. Marquez told Hon. Hoffman that she wanted a transfer and that she would call Hon. Silver in the morning. Id. ¶ 145.

That evening at approximately 8:30 P.M., Ms. Marquez spoke with Hon. Scarpulla and told her what had transpired earlier that day with Hon. Hoffman and stated that "her job was on the line." Id. ¶¶ 191-92. Hon. Scarpulla responded that her job was not on the line and not to worry because Hon. Silver would soon hire her and that everything would be much better then. Id. ¶ 192.She instructed Ms. Marquez to call Hon. Silver's chambers in the morning to arrange the transfer. Id. ¶ 192. Approximately an hour later at 9:30 P.M., Ms. Marquez and Hon. Scarpulla spoke on the phone again and Hon. Scarpulla expressed displeasure with her October 8 email to Hon. Hoffman. Id. ¶ 194. Hon. Scarpulla told Ms. Marquez that Hon. Silver now wanted to interview her, instead of having her transfer directly, to make sure that Plaintiff was a "team player." Id. ¶ 197.

On October 19, 2017 at approximately 9:15 A.M., Ms. Marquez called Hon. Silver's chambers and spoke to Denis Reo, Hon. Silver's law clerk, who told her that Hon. Silver was on vacation, and that he wanted to interview her once he returned. Id. ¶¶ 149, 199, 225. On Friday, October 20, 2017, Ms. Marquez emailed Hon. Hoffman to let him know that she would be out sick for the day and on Monday, October 23, 2017, she emailed him to let him know that she would be taking leave until her transfer was finalized. Id. ¶¶ 159-60. Hon. Hoffman did not respond. Id. ¶ 161.

C. After Working for Hon. Hoffman

On Friday, October 20, 2017, Plaintiff hand delivered a letter to Hon. Scarpulla. Id. ¶ 204; Hanna Decl. Ex. A ("Scarpulla Letter"). This letter recounted the events of October 18, 2017 with Hon. Hoffman and sought advice from Hon. Scarpulla on how to resolve the situation. TAC ¶ 204. The letter described Plaintiff as "fearful" of Hon. Hoffman's physical presence. Id. It also stated that Plaintiff was unable to return to work, was feeling isolated and was concerned about reprisal to her career. Id. Hon. Silver also learned of this letter and its contents. Id. ¶ 226. At approximately...