Moy v. Napoli Shkolnik, PLLC

1

SELMA MOY, Plaintiff, v. NAPOLI SHKOLNIK, PLLC, et al., Defendants.

No. 23 Civ. 3788 (DEH)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

July 22, 2024

OPINION AND ORDER

DALE E. HO, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Selma Moy (“Moy” or “Plaintiff”) brings this employment discrimination action against her former employer, Defendant Napoli Shkolnik, PLLC (“Napoli Shkolnik” or “the firm”), as well as Individual Defendants Paul Napoli, Marie Napoli Gloria Werle (“Werle”), and Salvatore C. Badala (“Badala”) (collectively “Defendants”). Moy alleges that Defendants discriminated against and harassed her on the basis of her race, color, national origin, and gender; subjected her to a hostile work environment; and retaliated against her for complaining about discriminatory treatment against her and others, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (“Section 1981”); the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), N.Y. Exec. Law § 290 et seq.; the New York State Civil Rights Law (“NYSCRL”), N.Y. Civ. Rights. Law § 40 et seq.; and the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”), N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-101 et seq. For the reasons that follow, Defendants' Rule 12(b)(2)^[1] motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over Defendants Paul and Marie Napoli is DENIED, while Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

BACKGROUND

I. Factual History

“The following facts are drawn from the [Amended] [C]omplaint and are assumed to be true for the purposes of this motion.” Cooper v. Templeton, 629 F.Supp.3d 223, 228 (S.D.N.Y. 2022), aff'd sub nom. Cooper v Franklin Templeton Invs., No. 22 Civ. 2763, 2023 WL 3882977 (2d Cir. June 8, 2023).^[2]

A. The Parties

Moy is a Chinese American^[3] woman with 28 years of experience as an attorney in private practice and as in-house counsel for an insurance company. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 17 25, ECF No. 16. Moy was hired by Napoli Shkolnik “exclusively to be a [case] manager” without her own caseload; in this capacity, she would be “peripherally involved” with upcoming trials and jointly manage the firm's paralegal staff. See id. ¶¶ 25-26. Moy additionally anticipated that part of her role would be to expand the firm's Chinese clientele. Id. ¶¶ 27-28. Prior to her termination, Moy had not been made aware of any issues with her performance at Napoli Shkolnik. See id. ¶¶ 63-65. Moy resides within the Southern District of New York. See id. ¶ 13.

Napoli Shkolnik is a law firm with a principal place of business in New York. Id. ¶ 18. Moy worked at Napoli Shkolnik for approximately six months, from May 9, 2022, to November 14, 2022. Id. ¶ 17.

Individual Defendant Paul Napoli is a white male and a resident of Puerto Rico. Id. ¶¶ 12 n.1, 19. During the relevant period, he was a principal at Napoli Skholnik and Plaintiff's employer. Id. ¶ 19. In May 2022, Moy was recruited by Paul Napoli to join Napoli Shkolnik, as “Department Head” of its personal injury department. See id. ¶¶ 17, 19.

Individual Defendant Marie Napoli is a white female and a resident of Puerto Rico. Id. ¶¶ 12 n.1, 20. During the relevant period, she was a principal at Napoli Skholnik and Plaintiff's employer. Id. ¶ 20. Moy interviewed with Marie Napoli when she was hired by the firm. See id. ¶ 27. Prior to November 2022, Marie Napoli had written Moy at least two emails detailing her satisfaction with Moy's work. See id. ¶ 63.

Individual Defendant Salvatore C. Badala (“Badala”) is white male. Id. ¶ 21. During the relevant period, he was General Counsel of Napoli Skholnik and an employer of Plaintiff. Id.

Moy describes Individual Defendant Gloria Werle (“Werle”) as “a white skinned female.” Id. ¶ 22. During the relevant period, she was the Chief Operating Officer and Director of Human Resources of the firm and an employer of Plaintiff. Id.

B. The Organizational Chart and Moy's Complaint

In August 2022, about three months after her employment at the firm commenced, Moy observed that she had been excluded from the firm's organizational chart. See id. ¶ 29. After Moy complained, the firm issued a new organizational chart that included Moy but excluded a different attorney at the firm, Heather Palmore (“Palmore”), who is an African American woman. See id. ¶¶ 29-30. The new chart also excluded or misclassified other attorneys of color. See id. ¶ 30. Moy emailed, inter alia, Individual Defendants Paul Napoli, Marie Napoli, and Werle “with complaints that the chart had errors in it and set out [] information regarding the exclusion and demotion of the employees of color.” See id. ¶ 31. A paralegal represented that although Palmore had been included in an earlier organizational chart, she “was taken off the chart because she did not have a caseload and had no case management team assigned to her.” Id. ¶¶ 32, 33.

C. The Aftermath

1. Exclusion from Meetings and Opportunities

After Moy complained about the organizational charts and showed support for Palmore, Moy was excluded from meetings. Id. ¶¶ 34, 44-b, 44-c. When Moy asked Defendants why she was excluded, Individual Defendants Paul Napoli and Werle informed her that they had not “want[ed] to bother [Moy] when she was preparing for a trial.” Id. ¶ 35. Additionally, Moy's contacts “in the form of input and meetings” with Paul Napoli decreased from “daily” in May 2022 to none by August 2022. See id. ¶ 44-f.

Moy was also generally “excluded and left out of discussions[ and] opportunities, and [was] denied input into decisions.” Id. ¶ 44-b. For example, “Moy was denied any opportunity to engage her experience and abilities in” medical malpractice and nursing home cases. Id. ¶ 44k. Moy offered to use her contacts with insurance carriers to try to help settle the firm's medical malpractice cases but was rejected. Id. ¶ 44-h. Joseph, or Joe, Ciaccio (“Ciaccio”), a white male at the firm, later attempted to use these same contacts. Id. ¶¶ 44-h to 44-j.

2. Changes to Moy's Role at the Firm

After Moy complained about the organizational charts and showed support for Palmore, Defendants changed Moy's job title from “Department Head” to “Co-Department Head.” Id. ¶ 37. Moy was also “demoted” without notice to the role of supervising attorney of the firm's New York City office. Id. ¶ 36. Paul Napoli told Moy that while she was still a Department Head, a different attorney-Ciaccio-“would be running everything for now” while Moy ran the New York City office. Id. ¶ 37. Additionally, Moy's “management duties were in essence eliminated when she was excluded from meetings.” Id. ¶ 74.

Defendants also “made efforts to change [Moy's] job duties from being a manager [of other attorneys] to [personally] handling [her own] case load of 100 cases.” Id. ¶ 38. Moy resisted this change, as she had not been hired to handle a caseload and as Defendants had not offered to assign her support staff to handle the proposed caseload. Id. Moy alleges that Defendants' attempt to assign her cases “was a clear message that Plaintiff was to stay in her place and not raise questions about her treatment and the treatment of others.” Id. While Moy was never assigned the cases, she was directed to serve as the “second attorney” to a white male, Joseph Napoli, on a number of his cases, without “authority to resolve those cases.” Id. ¶ 44-n. Defendants told Moy that she had been assigned to Joseph Napoli's cases so that she “could learn from him.” Id. ¶ 44-r. Moy characterizes this assignment as a “further disrespect” to her reputation within Napoli Shkolnik. Id.

Finally, although Moy had anticipated that part of her role would be to expand the firm's Chinese clientele, she was not given the opportunity to do so. See id. ¶ 44-g.

D. Disparate Treatment

Moy alleges that she was disparately treated compared to white men at the firm generally, and as compared to Ciaccio, specifically. As to the former, Moy never received staff support (despite repeated requests) while white male attorneys who worked under her all had support staffs. See id. ¶ 44-a. And “unlike her White male counterparts, [Moy] was excluded from meetings she was supposed to be a part of.” Id. ¶ 44-c.

Ciaccio-Moy's white, male Co-Department Head-had approximately 11 years of work experience, while Moy “possessed more than double the amount of experience of Mr. Ciaccio.” Id. ¶ 44-j. Ciaccio was not admitted to practice law in New Jersey, while Moy was. Id. Ciaccio “only covered court appearances. He did not conduct depositions or trials on a routine basis, and did not write motions. In contrast, Ms. Moy was required to do all those duties without the support provided to Mr. Ciaccio.” Id. ¶ 44-o. Notwithstanding these differences, Ciaccio supervised paralegals and a case management team, while Moy did not. See id. ¶ 44-o. When Moy attempted to use one of Ciaccio's paralegals to work on a trial, Ciaccio informed her that she “had to go through him” to use his paralegals. See id. ¶ 44-p.

E. Other Incidents

Moy describes other incidents during which she felt offended or disregarded. As relevant here, Moy alleges that although Napoli Shkolnik created a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (“DEI”) task force in August 2022, it did not take the task force seriously. See id. ¶¶ 45-57. For example, when Palmore requested that a question-by-question breakdown of DEI survey results be circulated to the entire firm, Werle “refused to circulate these results and instead said she would only provide the breakdown to” employees upon request. Id. ¶¶ 50-51. In response to an employee's question about discrimination within Napoli Shkolnik, Werle stated, “As a Latina woman . . ., I have never experienced discrimination, so I don't know what you mean by discrimination.” Id. ¶ 52. Although Moy was...