Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Plaintiff,
Defendant.
---------------------------------------X
NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), N.Y. Exec. Law § 296; the New
2601. Plaintiff also brings claims under New York state tort law
of plaintiff’s claims.
Case 1:19-cv-10196-NRB Document 29 Filed 10/16/20 Page 2 of 12
I. Background1
lower pay than was listed alongside the position listing. Compl.
calling him the “tallest midget” and a “creep,” and made “insulting
1 The following facts, which are drawn from the operative complaint, are
25.2
plaintiff that “he believed the party was for [p]laintiff’s baby
pregnancy.” Id.
in violation of New York Penal Law Section 250.05, notably he does not bring a
claim pursuant to this statute or any other claim for violation of privacy.
Compl. ¶ 18.
3
Case 1:19-cv-10196-NRB Document 29 Filed 10/16/20 Page 4 of 12
¶ 34.
took paternity leave for two weeks. Compl. ¶ 43. Upon his return,
4
Case 1:19-cv-10196-NRB Document 29 Filed 10/16/20 Page 5 of 12
fathers.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.
5
Case 1:19-cv-10196-NRB Document 29 Filed 10/16/20 Page 6 of 12
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
756 F.3d 219, 225 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).
III. Discussion
Title VII claim, the Court finds that plaintiff has failed to state
6
Case 1:19-cv-10196-NRB Document 29 Filed 10/16/20 Page 7 of 12
2000e-2(a)(1). The PDA amended Title VII to clarify that the terms
“because of sex” or “on the basis of sex” include, but are not
7
Case 1:19-cv-10196-NRB Document 29 Filed 10/16/20 Page 8 of 12
No. 05 Civ. 4835, 2008 WL 190585, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 17, 2008)
his Title VII claim falls under the narrow “sex plus” exception to
and can therefore serve as the basis for a Title VII suit.” Fisher
U.S. 133, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000). But to the
3
In support of his Title VII claim, plaintiff relies primarily on a case
from the Northern District of Mississippi, Pennington v. Southern Motion, Inc.,
No. 16 Civ. 110, 2017 WL 3897166 (N.D. Miss. Sept. 6, 2017). Even if this case
is to be construed as invoking a sex plus discrimination argument, for reasons
explained below, this fails because plaintiff makes no specific allegations
about how any expecting female was treated differently than he was.
8
Case 1:19-cv-10196-NRB Document 29 Filed 10/16/20 Page 9 of 12
sparse”); cf. Spires v. MetLife Grp., Inc., No. 18 Civ. 4464, 2019
VII. See Spiegel, 604 F.3d at 80. Under the NYCHRL, too, familial
9
Case 1:19-cv-10196-NRB Document 29 Filed 10/16/20 Page 10 of 12
dismiss his NYCHRL claim, which would permit the Court to dismiss
any way.”).
C. FMLA Claim
v. City of New York, 365 F.3d 165, 168 (2d Cir. 2004)(describing
10
Case 1:19-cv-10196-NRB Document 29 Filed 10/16/20 Page 11 of 12
state a claim.
FMLA claim, which alone would permit the Court to dismiss the
did, this too would have failed, because plaintiff has not alleged
that his termination arose in any way from his paternity leave.
over a claim” where “the district court has dismissed all claims
Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988) (“in the usual case
11
Case 1:19-cv-10196-NRB Document 29 Filed 10/16/20 Page 12 of 12
SO ORDERED.
____________________________
NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE