Matthew v. Tex. Comptroller of Pub. Accounts

1

ORELMA MATTHEW, Plaintiff, v. TEXAS COMPTROLLER OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS, KEITH WOMACK, Individually and in His Official Capacity, LAURA BEIMER, Individually and in Her Official Capacity, JUDITH PINCHINAT, Individually and in Her Official Capacity, Defendants.

No. 21 Civ. 5337 (JPC)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

September 30, 2022

OPINION AND ORDER

JOHN P. CRONAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Orelma Matthew alleges that her former employer, the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts (“TCPA”), as well as her former supervisors there, discriminated against her based on her race, fostered a hostile work environment because of her race, and then retaliated against her for protesting these actions. She brings claims under federal New York state, and New York City law against TCPA and against the other Defendants in both their official and their individual capacities. Defendants have moved to dismiss all claims, with the exception of Matthew's Title VII retaliation claim against TCPA.

Defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part. With respect to Matthew's claims against TCPA, Matthew has adequately alleged that the agency discriminated against her and subjected her to a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII. The remaining claims against TCPA are dismissed on sovereign immunity grounds. Keith Womack, Laura Beimer, and Judith Pinchinat (the “Individual Defendants”) also are entitled to sovereign immunity to the extent they are sued in their official capacities. In addition Matthew's failure to allege that any of the Individual Defendants subjected her to an adverse employment action requires dismissal of her race discrimination claims against them under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 and the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”). Matthew has, however, sufficiently pleaded that the Individual Defendants treated her less well due in part to her race, so her New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”) claims against them for discrimination and a hostile work environment survive dismissal. But Matthew's allegations against Womack and Beimer are insufficient to meet the higher showing required of a hostile work environment claim under the NYSHRL. The Court does not dismiss Matthew's state hostile work environment claim against Pinchinat because Defendants' motion fails to apply the appropriate legal standard for that claim. Additionally, Matthew's failure to allege that either Beimer or Pinchinat had any knowledge of her protected activity when they subjected her to disciplinary action requires dismissal of her retaliation claims against those Defendants under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL. And her NYSHRL retaliation claim against Womack fails because Womack's alleged conduct did not constitute a materially adverse employment action. But because Womack's conduct as alleged, was reasonably likely to deter employees from engaging in protected activity, Matthew's NYCHRL retaliation claim against him survives.

Each of these dismissals is without prejudice to Matthew filing an Amended Complaint in the event she is able to cure the pleading defects discussed below.

I. Background

A. Facts ^[1]

TCPA is an executive branch position created by the Texas Constitution to collect tax revenue with an office in New York, New York. Compl. ¶ 4. On January 15, 2015, Matthew, a black woman, began working for TCPA as an executive assistant. Id. ¶¶ 2, 22. Matthew received merit bonuses for her performance in 2016 and 2017. Id. ¶¶ 26-27. On April 25, 2017, during an administrative staff training, Matthew and other black employees “raised questions and concerns about proper and equal pay and treatment” to Womack, Matthew's supervisor and the Assistant Director at TCPA in Manhattan. Id. ¶¶ 7-8, 32. Womack “responded in a belittling tone stating that [the complaining employees would] not get any increase in pay because allegedly Auditors generate revenue and have a higher turnover rate, while Admins do not generate revenue and have lower turnover rates.” Id. ¶ 32. Additionally, “many White Admins received merit bonuses and were given salary increases, while Black Admins hardly received the same benefits and perks at the same rate of frequency.” Id. ¶ 33. At another March 2018 administrative staff training, Womack responded to black administrative employees who complained about workplace conditions and unequal pay “in a belittling tone, stating ‘If you don't like what's going on, you can leave and find another job.'” Id. ¶ 34.

Matthew's work performance was “outstanding” until Beimer became the Regional Manager for TCPA and Pinchinat became the Manager of TCPA's New York office on April 1, 2019. Id. ¶ 29. Thereafter, “Black employees, such as Plaintiff, were spoken down to, spoken to in a belittling and insulting tone and manner, while their White and non-Black counterparts were not.” Id. ¶ 30. Black employees that asked questions about pay and working conditions during administrative staff trainings were “responded to in a rude, demeaning and dismissive manner, while White and non-Black employees' concerns and questions [were] properly attended to.” Id. ¶ 31. Every black employee at Matthew's office “received some form of disciplinary action or reprimand” from Beimer and Pinchinat, while white employees were not treated similarly. Id. ¶ 36. Generally, black employees faced “harassment, discrimination and less favorable treatment” reflected in the “amount that Black employees were getting paid, in the manner they [were] addressed and spoken to, and even in the manner that Human Resources (‘H.R.') respond[ed] to their complaints and concerns.” Id. ¶ 37. Matthew offers an example. In July 2019, she reached out to the manager of H.R. “to get help with her grievance response” and the manager was “hostile over the phone” and “not receptive” to Matthew's complaints. Id. ¶ 38. Instead, the manager accused Matthew of lying in an email about contacting H.R. Id.

Towards the end of August 2019, Pinchinat gave Matthew a poor performance evaluation for the period of April 1, 2019 to August 31, 2019. Id. ¶ 39. Pinchinat put Matthew on a threemonth probation “based on unfounded allegations” and despite the fact that Matthew “had previously met and exceeded all her prior appraisals” since she started working at the TCPA in January 2015. Id.

Matthew submitted a complaint to H.R. on June 23, 2020 regarding race discrimination and on June 25, 2020 again complained that “Defendants ‘retracted' the complaint of another Black employee in an attempt to silence her” while “reiterat[ing] her own complaints of ‘systemic racism.'” Id. ¶ 42. Matthew complained again on June 29, 2020 about racism and unfair treatment and called for an outside company to investigate racism at TCPA. Id. ¶¶ 43-46. After Defendants did not respond, Matthew sent another complaint on July 10, 2020. Id. ¶¶ 47-48.

Defendants terminated Matthew on July 14, 2020. Id. ¶ 49.

B. Procedural History

Matthew filed a charge of discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on August 18, 2020. Id. ¶ 21. She received a right-to-sue notice on March 24, 2021. Id. Matthew then filed this lawsuit on June 16, 2021, within ninety days of receiving her EEOC determination. Id.

Matthew brings twelve claims against Defendants. These are: (1) race discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), against TCPA, Compl. ¶¶ 53-56; (2) race discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 against all Defendants, id. ¶¶ 57-60; (3) race discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against all Defendants, id. ¶¶ 61-64; (4) race discrimination in violation of the NYSHRL, N.Y. Exec. Law § 290 et seq., against all Defendants, Compl. ¶¶ 65-68; (5) race discrimination in violation of the NYCHRL, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-101 et seq., against all Defendants, Compl. ¶¶ 69-73; (6) retaliation in violation of Title VII against TCPA, id. ¶¶ 74-77; (7) retaliation in violation of the NYSHRL against all Defendants, id. ¶¶ 78-81; (8) retaliation in violation of the NYCHRL against all Defendants, id. ¶¶ 82-86; (9) promotion of a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII against TCPA, id. ¶¶ 87-90; (10) promotion of a hostile work environment in violation of the NYSHRL against all Defendants, id. ¶¶ 91-94; (11) promotion of a hostile work environment in violation of the NYCHRL against all Defendants, id. ¶¶ 95-99; and (12) negligent supervision against TCPA, id. ¶¶ 100-105.

On October 22, 2021, Defendants moved for partial dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Dkt. 10. Defendants do not challenge the Sixth Cause of Action, Matthew's Title VII retaliation claim against TCPA, at this time, but seek dismissal of all other claims on jurisdictional and deficient pleadings grounds. Dkt. 11 (“Defts. Mem.”) at 4-5.

II. Standard of Review

To survive a motion to dismiss, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. A complaint's “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 545. Although the Court must “accept[] as true the factual allegations in the complaint and draw[] all inferences in the plaintiff's favor,” Biro v. Conde Nast, 807 F.3d 541, 544 (2d Cir. 2015), it need not...