Ruiz v. New Avon LLC

CAROLINE RUIZ, OLIVERA KRSTANOSKA, and MAXINE RIVAS,on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. NEW AVON LLC and AVON PRODUCTS, INC., Defendants.

18-CV-9033 (VSB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

September 22, 2019

OPINION & ORDER

Appearances:

Hilary Joy Orzick

Jeanne-Marie Bates Christensen

Wigdor LLP

New York, New York

Counsel for Plaintiffs

Felice B. Ekelman

Sarah Katherine Hook

Jackson Lewis P.C.

New York, New York

Counsel for Defendant New Avon LLC

Gillian Egan (New Orleans, Louisiana)

Keisha-Ann Grace Gray (New York, New York)

Margaret F. Swetman (New Orleans, Louisiana)

Nicole A. Eichberger (New Orleans, Louisiana)

Proskauer Rose LLP

Counsel for Defendant Avon Products, Inc.

VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge:

Plaintiffs Caroline Ruiz, Olivera Krstanoska, and Maxine Rivas bring this employment discrimination putative class action against their prior employers Avon Products, Inc. ("Avon Products") and New Avon LLC ("New Avon"), alleging that they were discriminated against on the basis of pregnancy and the need to pump breast milk at work, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.; the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. L. § 290, et seq.; and the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin Code § 8-101, et seq.

Before me are (1) New Avon's motion to compel Plaintiff Ruiz to resolve her claims against New Avon through arbitration; (2) motions from both Defendants to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims in their entirety pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6); and (3) Avon Products' motion to strike certain allegations in Plaintiffs' Complaint relating to a fourth, anonymous Avon Products employee, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). Because any agreement by Ruiz to arbitrate was superseded by her subsequent employment agreement, which requires all disputes between Ruiz and New Avon to be resolved in New York courts, New Avon's motion to compel arbitration is DENIED. Defendants' motions to dismiss are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Specifically, Ruiz's claims against Avon Products are dismissed because she failed to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to her Title VII claim against Avon Products and because she did not satisfactorily plead that she was employed by Avon Products. The claims filed by Krstanoska and Rivas against New Avon are also dismissed because they did not allege that New Avon qualified as their employer. In addition, all of Rivas's claims and certain of Krstanoska's claims against Avon Products are barred by the relevant statute of limitations. Finally, Avon Products' motion to strike certain allegations from the Complaint is DENIED.

I. Background¹

Defendant Avon Products is a publicly traded beauty company, which operates in approximately 70 countries. (Compl. ¶ 38.) In March 2016, Avon Products spun off its North American business, including Canada, by forming Defendant New Avon, a privately held limited liability company. (Id.) New Avon "is headquartered at One Liberty Plaza, New York, New York," and is controlled by private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management, L.P. (Id. ¶¶ 38, 40.) Avon Products holds a minority share in New Avon and "continues to actively operate and participate in the Company's North American business." (Id. ¶ 39.)

A. Plaintiff Ruiz

In January 2018, Caroline Ruiz began working for New Avon in New York, New York as the Global Head of North America Indirect Procurement. (Compl. ¶¶ 35, 51.)² New Avon offered Ruiz a position on November 10, 2017 and Ruiz initially accepted that position on November 14, 2017 by signing an employment agreement which contained a "Governing Law: Jurisdiction: Jury Trial Waiver" clause, providing that with respect to "[a]ny and all actions or controversies arising out of" the employment agreement, Ruiz and New Avon "irrevocably consent and submit to the sole exclusive jurisdiction of the United States District Court for NewYork, or the Courts of the State of New York." (Germinario Aff. Ex. A, § 19; id. Ex. C.)³ Subsequently, on November 27, 2017, Ruiz signed an Employment Arbitration Agreement, which advised her that, "as a condition of your employment, or your continued employment with [New Avon], you and [New Avon] agree that any dispute arising from, related to, or in connection with your past, present and/or future association and/or employment with [New Avon] . . . must be resolved only through binding arbitration on an individual basis." (Id. Ex. F.)

Before the commencement of her employment with New Avon, Ruiz requested that her start date be delayed until January 2018. New Avon agreed to Ruiz's request and, after Ruiz asked whether "we should sign a new contract with a new starting date? I am not sure," New Avon responded that executing a new employment agreement would be a "good idea." (Id. Ex. G.) On December 13, 2017, New Avon provided Ruiz with a new employment agreement reflecting Ruiz's updated start date, and requested that Ruiz execute and return it. (Id.) Ruiz did so on December 19, 2017. (Id. Ex. H.) The revised employment agreement contained the same "Governing Law" clause as the previously executed employment agreement. (Id. Ex. G, § 19.)

Shortly after she began working at New Avon, Ruiz—who was pregnant at the time—began to experience heavy bleeding and was informed that there was a high likelihood that she would suffer a miscarriage. (Compl. ¶¶ 61-62.) On February 1, 2018, Ruiz informed New Avon's Human Resources ("HR") Department of her high-risk pregnancy and her physician's recommendation that she should work from home for a limited period of time. (Id. ¶¶ 66-67.) At HR's request, Ruiz submitted a doctor's note recommending that she work remotely fromFebruary 5 through February 9, 2018. (Id. ¶¶ 68-69.) On February 2, 2018—one day after Ruiz informed New Avon of her pregnancy—Ruiz's supervisor, Raj Nath, advised Ruiz that New Avon was troubled by certain "performance issues"; when Ruiz discussed her pregnancy concerns with him, he responded, "Your health isn't my concern, but your performance is." (Id. ¶¶ 71-79.) New Avon subsequently denied Ruiz's request to work remotely for five days. (Id. ¶ 80.) On February 5, 2018, New Avon terminated Ruiz for alleged "performance deficiencies." (Id. ¶¶ 89-91.)

B. Plaintiff Krstanoska

In January 2014, microbiologist Olivera Krstanoska began working at Avon Products' Global Research and Development Center in Suffern, New York. (Compl. ¶ 100.) Approximately eight months after joining Avon Products, Krstanoska learned that she was pregnant with her first child. (Id. ¶ 101.) Almost immediately after disclosing her pregnancy, Krstanoska was subjected to an unsafe working environment. (Id. ¶ 102.) Because certain of her tasks as a microbiologist exposed her to chemicals that posed a health risk to pregnant women, Krstanoska explained to her supervisors that she would need to avoid those tasks during her pregnancy. (Id. ¶¶ 103-04.) Specifically, Krstanoska was reluctant to work with a chemical called HC Agar, which was known to be particularly "harmful to pregnant mothers." (Id. ¶ 105.) However, despite the well-known risks of these hazardous chemicals, Krstanoska's supervisor, Kathy LaPointe, insisted that Krstanoska continue to work with them. (Id. ¶ 106.) Throughout Krstanoska's pregnancy, LaPointe repeatedly belittled Krstanoska and reprimanded her for taking steps to protect her health, including by wearing a mask to prevent breathing in toxic chemicals and refusing to work with certain of the most toxic chemicals, including HC Agar. (Id. ¶¶ 107, 114.) Krstanoska complained about this harassment but, to her knowledge, AvonProducts did not investigate her complaints or escalate them to HR. (Id. ¶¶ 115-16.)

After the birth of her first child, Krstanoska went on maternity leave, returning in October 2015. (Id. ¶ 117.) When she returned, she discovered that she no longer had her own workstation or lab equipment and was required to use the equipment of her colleagues after they had completed their work, making it difficult for Krstanoska to perform her work to the best of her abilities. (Id. ¶¶ 118-21.) False rumors began to spread among her colleagues that Krstanoska was suffering from post-partum depression. (Id. ¶ 124.) During this time, Krstanoska was nursing and therefore needed to pump breast milk during the workday. (Id. ¶ 151.) Krstanoska's colleagues and supervisors repeatedly harassed her and accused her of attempting to avoid her work responsibilities by taking short breaks throughout the day to pump; her co-workers also made disparaging remarks regarding Krstanoska's decision to breastfeed. (Id. ¶¶ 153-54.)

In November 2015, Krstanoska became pregnant with her second child. (Id. ¶ 129.) When Krstanoska again requested that she not be required to work with HC Agar during her pregnancy, she was penalized in her year-end review for making that request. (Id. ¶¶ 130-33.) Her supervisor, Donald English, also began excluding Krstanoska from calls and team meetings and required Krstanoska to work longer hours than some of her colleagues. (Id. ¶¶ 142-44.) Krstanoska continued to complain to HR about the discriminatory treatment on a weekly basis. (Id. ¶ 148.)

The harassment continued to escalate through April 2016, at which point Krstanoska was six months pregnant. (Id. ¶¶ 159-60.) On April 22, 2016, English aggressively confronted Krstanoska and began yelling at her about her efforts to document her hostile work environment; Krstanoska feared that English might attempt to hit or harm her. (Id. ¶ 159.) When Krstanoskacomplained of English's conduct, she was subsequently transferred to a new position in a different department, toxicology. (Id. ¶¶ 162-64.) Krstanoska had no experience in toxicology and was unqualified for her new position; in addition, she was assigned the workload of three previous employees. (...