Soto v. Vanguard Constr. & Dev. Co.

1

SOCRATES SOTO, Plaintiff, v. VANGUARD CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., MICHAEL STRAUSS, In His Individual and Official Capacities, an ANDY FINLEY, In His Individual and Official Capacities, Defendants.

No. 23 Civ. 6044 (JPC)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

September 25, 2024

OPINION AND ORDER

JOHN P. CRONAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Socrates Soto alleges that his former employer, Vanguard Construction and Development Company (“Vanguard”), as well as Andy Finley, his former supervisor there, and Michael Strauss, Vanguard's owner, fostered a hostile work environment because of Soto's sex, race, and ethnicity and then retaliated against him when he protested their actions. Soto brings discrimination and retaliation causes of action against them under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 290 et seq. (the “NYSHRL”), and the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8-101 et seq. (the “NYCHRL”). He also brings a New York state law cause of action of negligence against Vanguard and Strauss, and state law causes of action of assault and battery against Finley. Defendants have moved to dismiss all causes of action.

For the reasons that follow, the Court grants Defendants' motion concluding that Soto has failed to state a claim as to any of his federal causes of action and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law causes of action. This dismissal is without prejudice to Soto filing an amended complaint.

I. Background

A. Facts^[1]

As of the filing of the Complaint, Soto was a 49-year-old Hispanic male. Compl. ¶ 21. In late 2004, he began working as a “Laborer” for Vanguard, id. ¶ 27, and he continued to do so- seemingly without incident-until December 21, 2020, id. ¶ 30. On that date, Soto was working in the kitchen area of a restaurant that Vanguard was constructing when he was approached by Finley, Vanguard's Site Supervisor for the location. Id. ¶¶ 25, 31. Finley “forcefully grabbed and squeezed [Soto's] left chest/breast muscle.” Id. ¶ 32. After this contact, Soto pulled away and told Finley to stop, but Finley reached back out, “grabbing and squeezing [Soto's] buttocks.” Id. ¶¶ 33-34. Again, Soto immediately pulled away and told Finley to stop touching him, at which point Finley walked away laughing. Id. ¶¶ 37-38.

This was not the only time Soto took offense from Finley's behavior. Soto also complains that two days later, on December 23, Finley mistreated two Hispanic carpenters from another company in Soto's presence. Id. ¶ 44. In a rage, Finley approached the two carpenters “in a physically threatening manner” and threw their personal items-such as jackets and backpacks- onto the ground. Id. ¶¶ 44-45, 62. Soto interjected to prevent the situation from escalating. Id. ¶ 47. And Soto had another incident with Finley the next day, December 24. Upset about the quality of the caulking at the worksite, Finley ranted that “fucking immigrants come to my country and take my tax dollars” when they “abuse the system [and] go on unemployment,” and that immigrants “have no job integrity, they sit down, drink coffee, and fuck it.” Id. ¶¶ 49-52. Once again, Soto interjected, this time commenting that Finley's last name shows that he too was a descendent of immigrants. Id. ¶ 53. Finley did not respond but “walked away mumbling more discriminatory comments.” Id. ¶ 55. According to Soto, Finley only treated Hispanic employees in this poor manner. Id. ¶ 48. During the December 23 incident, for example, non-Hispanic employees were nearby but were not physically threatened by Finley. Id.

Soto then took some time off for the holidays, and was off work from Christmas 2020 until January 6, 2021. Id. ¶ 56. During that time, Soto learned that Finley continued to make disparaging comments toward at least two other Hispanic employees, including commenting that “the employees were in America[] long enough and that they should be able to speak English by now.” Id. ¶¶ 57-58. So on January 7, 2021, Soto texted Vanguard's Human Resources (“HR”) Administrator and complained about the three incidents that had occurred on December 21, 23, and 24 of the prior year. Id. ¶ 62. When the Administrator and Soto discussed the incidents in greater detail later that day, the Administrator implied that Finley's conduct was not serious and compared it to horseplay or the type of behavior common among baseball and basketball teammates. Id. ¶¶ 63-67. Believing that pursuing his complaint with HR would be futile, Soto requested a meeting with Finley and his bosses, including Vanguard's Executive Vice President of Construction, a Vanguard Foreman, and Strauss, Vanguard's owner. Id. ¶¶ 24, 70-71. But no meeting was ever scheduled, and Soto never heard more about his complaint to HR. Id. ¶ 74. Later, the HR Administrator told Soto that Finley would be fired at the end of the week, but that too never happened. Id. ¶¶ 75-77.

Soto alleges that, after his complaint to HR, Defendants “began to systematically place [Soto] in less-desirable positions and/or assigned [Soto] to complete tasks that are regarded as punitive.” Id. ¶ 83. Suddenly, Soto “was being relegated to clean up duties and was not given the types of assignments that he was given before his complaint.” Id. ¶ 85. Soto gave notice to Defendants of his intent to pursue legal action against them on July 12, 2021. Id. ¶ 104. From then until Soto ceased working at Vanguard, the company's management, including Strauss, tried to dissuade Soto from pursuing his claims. Id. Specifically, Strauss approached Soto multiple times to try and convince him to drop his claims-even once offering to pay for counseling, but only if Soto dropped the complaint against Finley. Id. ¶¶ 105-108. And Strauss continued to urged Soto to drop his complaint against Finley, even after Soto confided in Strauss that he had been a victim of sexual assault as a youth, explaining his reaction to Finley's conduct. Id. ¶¶ 109, 113.

B. Procedural History

Soto filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) later that year on December 2, 2021. Id. ¶ 12. He received a Notice of Right to Sue on April 29, 2023, id., and filed this Complaint on July 13, 2023. Soto brings eleven causes of action: Cause of Action I for sexual harassment and discrimination, citing a hostile work environment, under Title VII against Vanguard, id. ¶¶ 131-141; Cause of Action II for retaliation under Title VII against Vanguard, id. ¶¶ 142-153; Causes of Action III and IV for discrimination and retaliation, respectively, under the NYSHRL against Vanguard, id. ¶¶ 154-180; Cause of Action V for discrimination and retaliation under the NYSHRL against Finley and Strauss, individually, id. ¶¶ 181-194; Causes of Action VI and VII for discrimination and retaliation, respectively, under the NYCHRL against Vanguard, id. ¶¶ 195-225; Cause of Action VIII for discrimination and retaliation under the NYCHRL against Finley and Strauss, individually, id. ¶¶ 226-239; Causes of Action IX and X for assault and battery, respectively, against Finley, id. ¶¶ 240-260; and Cause of Action XI for negligence and gross negligence against Vanguard and Strauss, individually and collectively, id. ¶¶ 261-273.

Defendants thereafter moved to dismiss Soto's Complaint-Vanguard and Strauss together, and Finley separately-for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Dkts. 24, 27. Those motions are now fully briefed. See Dkt. 26 (“Strauss & Vanguard MTD”); Dkt. 28 (“Finley MTD”); Dkt. 30 (“Opp. to Finley”); Dkt. 32 (“Opp. to Vanguard & Strauss”); Dkt. 36 (“Strauss & Vanguard Reply”); Dkt. 37 (“Finley Reply”). From the Complaint, it was unclear what theory of Title VII liability Soto was pursuing in his first Cause of Action, as he used language that suggested both disparate treatment and hostile work environment. See Compl. ¶¶ 132-136. After the Court sought clarification, Dkt. 38, Soto explained that, in his first Cause of Action, he only is pursuing a theory that he experienced a hostile work environment based on his sex, race, and ethnicity. Dkt. 39 at 1-2 (“Soto Suppl. Br.”); see also Dkt. 40 (Finley's supplemental brief); Dkt 41 (Strauss and Vanguard's supplemental brief).

II. Legal Standard

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 “accept as true legal conclusions couched as factual allegations,” LaFaro v. N.Y. Cardiothoracic Grp., PLLC, 570 F.3d 471, 475-76 (2d Cir. 2009).

III. Discussion

A. Title VII Causes of Action

The Court begins with Soto's federal law claims. In his first Cause of Action, he alleges that Vanguard violated Title VII by creating a hostile work environment “because of his sex/gender (male), race/color (Hispanic), and national origin/ethnicity.”^[2] Compl. ¶¶ 131-141. In his second Cause of Action, Soto alleges that Vanguard retaliated against him for complaining to management about Finley's...