Santiago v. Acacia Network, Inc.

634 F.Supp.3d 143

Mirna Martinez SANTIAGO, Plaintiff, v. ACACIA NETWORK, INC., et al., Defendants.

22-cv-228 (JGK)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

Signed October 10, 2022

Michael Eric Kupferberg, Bradley Ross Siegel, The Siegel Law Firm, P.C., Garden City, NY, for Plaintiff.

Peter T. Shapiro, Simi Bhutani, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants ACACIA Network, Inc., Promesa Administrative Services Organization, Inc. (PASO).

Richard W. Mark, Hayley Fritchie, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants David Glasel, Lymaris Albors, Raul Russi.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge:

The plaintiff, Mirna Martinez Santiago, brought this action against the defendants, ACACIA Network, Inc. ("Acacia"), Promesa Administrative Services Organization, Inc. ("Promesa"), David Glasel, Lymaris Albors, and Raul Russi, alleging discrimination on the basis of national origin, race, color, and sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"); 42 U.S.C. § 1981; the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 290 et seq. ("NYSHRL"); and the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-101 et seq. ("NYCHRL"). The plaintiff also alleges discrimination with respect to compensation in violation of the Equal Pay Act ("EPA"), 29 U.S.C. § 206(d); the New York State Equal Pay Act, N.Y. Labor Law ("NYLL") §194; and the NYCHRL. Finally, the plaintiff alleges age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.; the NYSHRL; and the NYCHRL, and retaliation in violation of Title VII, Section 1981, the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL.

The defendants now move to dismiss the plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (the "Complaint") for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the following reasons, the defendant's motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.

I.

The following facts are taken from the plaintiff's Complaint, ECF No. 31.¹ Santiago is a "51-year old Black female of Honduran descent with a dark complexion." Compl. ¶ 15. Acacia and Promesa (the "Corporate Defendants") are non-profit domestic corporations. Id. ¶¶ 8-9. Promesa provides supervisory and administrative services for Acacia. Id. ¶ 9. The individual defendants were all employees of Acacia, with Glasel serving as Chief Legal Officer, Russi serving as Chief Executive Officer, and Albors serving as Chief Operating Officer. Id. ¶¶ 10-13.

From October 2016 to September 20, 2019, Acacia employed the plaintiff as Deputy Counsel for Litigation in the Office of Legal Affairs. Id. ¶ 14. At the time the plaintiff was hired as Deputy Counsel, she had over 20 years of litigation experience, held leadership positions at the New York State Bar Association, and frequently participated in speaking engagements and panel engagements. Id. ¶ 36. At Acacia, the plaintiff handled litigation matters, oversaw outside counsel on litigation matters, and "served as de facto Supervisor to other attorneys and staff in the Office of Legal Affairs." Id.

Albors began at Acacia as an Event Planner before being promoted to Chief of Staff and then to Chief Operating Officer (COO), all within an eighteen-month period. Id. ¶ 22. As COO, Albors, a Puerto Rican woman, "publicly stated on numerous instances that it was her purpose to promote Puerto Rican employees," and that the future of the organization was "young Puerto Rican women." Id. ¶ 25. The plaintiff alleges that, as COO, Albors salary was over $350,000. Id. ¶ 49. The plaintiff alleges that when the plaintiff was hired in October 2016, Albors was approximately in her mid-thirties. Id. ¶ 84. The plaintiff alleges that she was subordinated to Albors after Albors' promotions.

Giamaro Rosado is a Puerto Rican employee, about 35 years old, who had been an attorney for 4 years when she was promoted to Supervisor in the Office of Legal Affairs. Id. ¶¶ 21, 23, 38. As a result of this promotion, the plaintiff was directed to report to Rosado. The plaintiff alleges that she was "skipped over for advancement" in favor of Rosado because the plaintiff was not Puerto Rican. Id. ¶ 30. The plaintiff alleges that, "due to Rosado's limited legal and litigation experience," Rosado often sought and consulted with the plaintiff "for advice, direction, review and supervisory assistance on legal and litigation matters." Id. ¶ 41. As Supervisor, Rosado was paid more than the plaintiff despite having 15 fewer years of experience.

In June 2019, the plaintiff was promoted to Senior Deputy Counsel for Litigation. Id. ¶ 47. However, Rosado "received a much larger salary increase than [the plaintiff]" and remained the plaintiff's supervisor "on paper" as the then-Chief Legal Officer explained to the plaintiff. Id. The plaintiff alleges that her salary remained "between $25,000 and $100,000 less than Rosado's salary." Id. ¶ 48. The plaintiff alleges that Albors and Russi directed the Office of Legal Affairs to "keep Rosado's salary and position higher" because Rosado was "young and Puerto Rican" and the plaintiff was not. Id. ¶ 52.

Russell Palmer is a white male who was employed by ACACIA as Corporate Risk Manager in the Office of Legal Affairs. Id. ¶ 53. Palmer did not have a college degree when he was hired. In 2018, the plaintiff interviewed Palmer for the position of Corporate Risk Manager and recommended that Palmer be hired. Id. ¶ 54. The plaintiff also trained Palmer. Id. The plaintiff alleges that she "developed the risk management policies and handled the risk management responsibilities for Acacia herself for nearly a year and a half prior to Palmer's hire." Id. When Palmer was hired, Hector Diaz, Acacia's then-president, "raised concerns about hiring Palmer without a college degree and paying him more than female women of color . . . in the Office of Legal Affairs." Id. ¶ 55. In response to this concern, Acacia raised Rosado's salary to be $10,000 more than Palmer's, but did not also raise the plaintiff's salary. Id. ¶¶ 55, 58. Palmer's starting salary was $13,000 more per year than the plaintiff's during the same time period. Id. ¶ 56. Additionally, Palmer was provided with free parking directly across the street from the office, whereas the plaintiff was not provided with free parking and had to pay for parking approximately four blocks away from the office. Id. ¶¶ 59, 60.

The plaintiff then complained repeatedly to Glasel, her direct supervisor; Katrina Jones, Director of Human Resources; Candida Hierro, Human Resources Manager; Maria del Carmen Arroyo, then-Vice President of Administration; Rodriguez, then-Special Counsel; Diaz; and Roberto Velez, the attorney for Acacia's Board of Directors, about the discrimination that she allegedly experienced. Id. ¶ 61. The plaintiff alleges that, instead of investigating the complaints, the defendants retaliated against her.

The plaintiff alleges that, from July 2017 to March 19, 2018, she complained to Glasel about her salary being significantly less than the salaries of Rosado and Palmer and about her subordination to Rosado. Afterwards, Glasel "completely ignored" the plaintiff for weeks until April 2018, when Glasel "demand[ed]" that the plaintiff file a motion on a matter for which there was outside counsel and in which the plaintiff was not the attorney of record. Id. ¶ 65. The plaintiff responded that it would not be proper for her to do so. Immediately afterwards, "Glasel became enraged, stood up over [the plaintiff] in a menacing and intimidating manner, pounded his fists on the table in front of her, and yelled down at her and ordered that she comply with his demand." Id. ¶ 65. This caused the plaintiff to "cry, return to her office to get her belongings and leave the premises." Id. ¶ 67. Both Rodriguez and Diaz witnessed the event but "did not nothing to stop it." Id. ¶ 70.

The next day, the plaintiff complained to Rodriguez, Diaz, and Arroyo about Glasel's conduct. Rodriguez allegedly dismissed the complaints of Glasel's discrimination by stating that "Glasel's wife is dark." Id. ¶ 73. Following the plaintiff's complaints, Glasel was promoted to Special Counsel, Rodriguez's former position, and Rodriguez was promoted to Chief Legal Officer, Glasel's former position. Id. ¶ 74.

In May 2019, Jones, the Director of Human Resources, reprimanded the plaintiff for re-hiring outside counsel without Russi's prior approval, despite the approval of Rodriguez, then-Chief Legal Officer. Additionally, the plaintiff alleges that "a targeted and retaliatory policy" was "hastily created" to prevent the plaintiff from "public speaking and participating on a prestigious panel at St. John's University School of Law" due to "new restrictions" against speaking engagements for which the plaintiff previously had been "provided blanket approval." Id. ¶ 77. The plaintiff alleges that Yaberci Perez-Cubillan, another employee who was a "light skinned Hispanic woman," was not restricted from public speaking engagements under the same policy. Id. ¶ 78.

The plaintiff also alleges that when her stepdaughter applied for an open paralegal position at Acacia, Rodriguez told the plaintiff that her stepdaughter could not be hired because of a policy against nepotism. However, the plaintiff alleges that it was "common for Puerto Rican employees to have other family members working at Acacia, such as Eugenio Russi reporting to his brother, Raul Russi, and David Arroyo reporting to his sister, Maria del Carmen Arroyo." Id. ¶ 80. The plaintiff alleges that the nepotism policy "did not impact Puerto Rican employees." Id. ¶ 81.

The plaintiff resigned from her position on September 20, 2019 and alleges that she was constructively discharged at that time due to the defendants' "racism, harassment, and retaliation." Id. ¶ 99. Upon her resignation, the plaintiff met with Arroyo, then-Senior Vice President of Administration, and complained...