Bentivegna v. People's United Bank, People's United Ins. Agency, Inc.
| Decision Date | 21 June 2016 |
| Docket Number | 14-cv-599 (ADS)(GRB) |
| Parties | JOANNE BENTIVEGNA, Plaintiffs, v. PEOPLE'S UNITED BANK, PEOPLE'S UNITED INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., DAN CASEY, LOUISE SANDBERG, and JOHN BARNES, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
APPEARANCES:
Leeds Brown Law P.C.
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs
Carle Place, NY 11514
By: Rick Ostrove, Esq.
Andrew George Costello, Esq., Of Counsel
Jackson Lewis, P.C.
58 South Service Road, Suite 250
Melville, NY 11747
By: Daniel Sergio Gomez-Sanchez, Esq.
Mark S. Mancher, Esq., Of Counsel
This case arises from allegations by the Plaintiff Joanne Bentivegna (the "Plaintiff" or "Bentivegna") that her former employer, the Defendant People's United Insurance Agency, Inc. ("PUIA"), and the Defendants People's United Bank, Dan Casey, Louise Sandberg, and John Barnes (collectively, the "Defendants"), discriminated against her on the basis of her gender and retaliated against her in violation of 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. ("NYSHRL"); and the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d) (the "Equal Pay Act"). In addition, she asserts a breach of contract claim; an unjust enrichment claim; and a claim under New York Labor Law § 190 et seq. related to the Defendants' alleged failure to pay her $90,000 in sales commissions.
Presently before the Court is a motion by the Plaintiff pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Fed. R. Civ. P." or "Rule") 12(b)(1) to dismiss counterclaims filed by the Defendants against the Plaintiff for breach of contract; conversion; unfair competition; misappropriation of confidential and proprietary information; tortious interference with business relations; and diversion of corporate opportunity and breach of a duty of loyalty.
For the reasons set forth below, the Plaintiff's motion is granted and the counterclaims are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The Plaintiff is a resident of Shoreham, New York. (Am. Compl. at ¶ 1.) From 1987 to 2004, she was employed by Seigerman-Mulvey Company, Inc. ("Seigerman-Mulvey") first as a customer service representative, then as a commissioned insurance salesperson, and finally as a partner. (Id. at ¶¶ 11-12.)
In 2004, the Bank of Smithtown acquired Seigerman-Mulvin, at which point, the Plaintiff began working as an operations manager for the Bank of Smithtown Insurance Agents & Brokers ("BOSIAB"). (Id. at ¶ 14.) In 2007, the Plaintiff became the president of BOSIAB. (Id. at ¶ 15.)
The Defendant People's United Bank is a federally chartered stock savings bank with headquarters in Bridgeport, Connecticut. (Id. at ¶ 7.)
The Defendant PUIA is a wholly owned subsidiary of People's United Bank. (Id. at ¶ 8.) It is a Connecticut corporation that operates an insurance agency and has an office in Hauppauge, New York. (Id.)
On November 30, 2010, People's United Bank acquired BOSIAB, and BOSIAB merged with PUIA. (Id. at ¶¶ 20-21.)
In December 2010, as part of the transition, the Plaintiff lost her title as President and her fixed salary. (Id. at ¶ 31.) Instead, she assumed a role at PUIA as a commissioned sales producer and agreed to an arrangement whereby she would receive a commission of 25% on all new policies and policy renewals that she helped to procure. (Id. at ¶¶ 32-33.)
According to the amended complaint, in January 2011, the Plaintiff learned that PUIA was paying male sales producers with the same book of business that she had at a commission rate of 32%, seven percent higher than the 25% commission rate that PUIA agreed to pay her. (Id. at ¶ 37.)
In March 2011, the Plaintiff began complaining to the Defendant Dan Casey ("Casey"), the then-chief executive officer of PUIA, about this apparent pay disparity. (Id. at ¶ 38.) On June 27, 2011, after the Plaintiff raised the issue several more times with Casey, he agreed to pay her at a rate commensurate with her male colleagues beginning on August 1, 2011, but he refused to make the pay increase retroactive. (Id. at ¶ 50.)
According to the amended complaint, Casey made a number of inappropriate comments and suggestions to the Plaintiff and other female employees during sales meetings and company events, including the following: (i) in a July 2011 meeting, he used the word "do" in a way that suggested an illusion to sex, see id. at ¶ 51; (ii) in the summer of 2011, he threw ping pong balls down the shirt of a female co-worker during a company picnic, see id. at ¶ 53; (iii) during aFebruary 2012 lunch meeting, he told a hostess at a lunch meeting that he would "take two of those," in reference to her breasts, see id. at ¶ 56; (iv) during a June 2012 meeting, he told sales producers to bring clients to bars to close deals but advised, "you can't do that with women," see id. at ¶ 63; and (v) in a July 2012 meeting, he stated in front of thirty employees, "We are happy that [the Plaintiff] is successful, despite that she's a woman," id. at ¶ 66.
In addition, in June 2012, the Plaintiff was at the Hartford office of PUIA and took down a poster in the coffee room that depicted a woman in a low-cut tank top. (Id. at ¶ 60.) Based "[u]pon information and belief," the Plaintiff alleges that after she took the poster down, unidentified employees replaced the poster with another poster of a woman "clad in thigh-high fishnet stockings holding a pair of handcuffs." (Id. at ¶ 61.)
The Plaintiff also alleges that she was offered less administrative support than other male sales managers. (Id. at ¶¶ 42-44.) Further, on one occasion, Casey sent a list of sales leads to male employees before sending it to female employees, and as a result, male employees obtained more promising sales leads than their female counterparts. (Id. at ¶¶ 42-44, 72.)
On December 7, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the New York State Division of Human Rights ("NYSDHR") and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") alleging sexual harassment and gender discrimination. (Id. at ¶ 79.)
Subsequently, the Defendants removed the Plaintiff from her position as a team leader for a sales team in the Hartford office and assigned her to a smaller team in the Bridgeport office (Id. at ¶ 81.) On June 6, 2013, the NYSDHR found probable cause to support the allegations in the Plaintiff's complaint. (Id. at ¶ 94.)
On July 31, 2013, after the parties had engaged in settlement negotiations, Brian Loveless ("Loveless"), the chief financial officer of PUIA, and Deborah Gross ("Gross"), a humanresources manager, held a meeting with the Plaintiff and informed her that they were placing her on administrative leave immediately because she accessed company information on her private email address. (Id. at ¶ 101.) As a result, the Plaintiff could no longer sell insurance or generate new commissions. (Id.)
On August 19, 2013, Gross informed the Plaintiff that PUIA was terminating her employment. (Id. at ¶¶ 103-04.)
According to the amended complaint, during the course of her employment, the Defendants represented to the Plaintiff that even after she was terminated, she would continue to receive commissions on accounts that she originated if those accounts were renewed. (Id. at ¶ 120-21.) However, the Defendants have thus far refused to pay her $90,000 in commissions that she claims that she is entitled to. (Id. at ¶ 125.)
On September 4, 2013, prior to the Plaintiff commencing this action, the Defendant PUIA filed a summons and complaint (the "State Court Complaint") in New York State Supreme Court, Suffolk County, seeking injunctive relief and monetary damages against the Plaintiff, John K. Mulvey ("Mulvey"), and WLF Consulting, Inc. ("WLF") (the "State Court Action"). (See State Court Compl., Costello Aff., Ex. 1.) The State Court Complaint paints a picture of the events leading up to the Plaintiff's termination that is starkly different from the allegations discussed above.
In particular, according to the State Court Complaint, prior to April 2004, Mulvey and the Plaintiff were both principals at Seigerman-Mulvey. (Id. at ¶ 13.) In 2004, they entered into an agreement to sell their shares in Seigerman-Mulvey to the Bank of Smithtown in exchange forcash pay-outs. (Id. at ¶ 14.) They also entered into separate employment agreements with Bank of Smithtown. (Id. at ¶ 15.)
Under the terms of the purchase agreement and their employment agreements, Mulvey and the Plaintiff allegedly agreed that during the period of their employment with the Bank of Smithtown, they would not "engage as an agent, broker, independent contractor, employee or consultant in a company that is not affiliated with [Bank of Smithtown]." (Id. at ¶ 16.) They also agreed that for a period of three years from the dates of their terminations, they would not "engage as an agent, broker, independent contractor, employee or consultant in a company . . . which is in the business of selling insurance products and services and/or offering mutual fund investment services in . . . Suffolk, Nassau, Queens, Kings, New York, or Staten Island [Counties]." (Id. at ¶ 17.)
On January 1, 2011, People's United Bank acquired the Bank of Smithtown and in doing so, also allegedly acquired all the rights under any contracts or agreements with the Bank of Smithtown or its predecessor entities, including the restrictive covenants described above. (Id. at ¶ 9.)
Following the acquisition, Mulvey and the Plaintiff became employees of the Defendant PUIA. (See id. at ¶ 27.) As employees of PUIA, they became subject to a code of conduct under which they agreed to, among other things, not disclose the confidential and proprietary information of PUIA. (Id. at ¶ 23.)
Allegedly, on December 18, 2012, while still employed at PUIA, the Plaintiff formed WLF without...
To continue reading
Request your trial