Decurtis v. Upward Bound Int'l, Inc.
| Decision Date | 27 September 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 09 Civ. 5378 (RJS),09 Civ. 5378 (RJS) |
| Parties | DONNA DECURTIS, Plaintiff, v. UPWARD BOUND INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
On April 27, 2010, the Court entered default judgments against Defendants Upward Bound International, Inc., LDA Travel Corporation, Seth Rudman, and Thomas Ferrandina on Plaintiff's sex discrimination and retaliation claims.1
The Court held an inquest into Plaintiff's damages on October 14, 2010. At the inquest, the Court stated it would issue a ruling on damages at the same time it ruled on Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees, which had not yet been submitted. Now before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and costs. For the following reasons, the Court enters judgment for the Plaintiff for $183,818.36 in back pay, $236,085 in front pay, $100,000 in compensatory damages, $75,000 in punitive damages, $206,443 in attorney's fees, and $8,851 in costs.
Plaintiff, a woman, worked for Upward Bound International, Inc. ("Upward Bound") from 2003 through 2008, when she was involuntarily terminated. (Am. Compl. ¶ 6.) At that time, Upward Bound was a Manhattan travel agency that specialized in making travel arrangements for corporate and entertainment industry clients. (Id. ¶ 7.) Upward Bound ceased to exist in August 2009 and its operations were transferred to LDA Travel Corporation ("LDA"), a New York corporation that makes travel and transportation arrangements for clients, and Tzell Travel LLC ("Tzell"), a New York limited liability company that sells airline tickets and hotel accommodations. (Id. ¶¶ 7, 10-11.)
Thomas Ferrandina ("Ferrandina") was Vice President of Operations at Upward Bound and Plaintiff's supervisor. (Id. ¶ 8.) In 2003, Ferrandina recruited Plaintiff to work at Upward Bound. (Id. ¶ 13.) Beginning in July 2004, Ferrandina sexually harassed Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 18.) Among other things, Ferrandina repeatedly touched Plaintiff in a sexual manner without her consent (id. ¶ 19), sent Plaintiff sexually explicit e-mails and made sexually explicit comments (id. ¶¶ 20-22), and called her late at night and on weekends to talk about sex (id. ¶ 23).
When Plaintiff objected to Ferrandina's behavior, Ferrandina threatened Plaintiff's job. (Decl. of Donna DeCurtis dated September 7, 2010, Doc No. 68 ("DeCurtis Decl.") ¶ 13.) As a result of Ferrandina's actions, Plaintiff "was constantly stressed, nervous and unable to sleep." (Id. ¶ 14.) Plaintiff dreaded going to work, and felt sick each time Ferrandina called her into his office. (Id.)
In August 2004, Plaintiff complained to Debra Feldman, the head of human resources at Upward Bound, about Ferrandina's conduct, and Feldman informed Seth Rudman ("Rudman"), the then-owner of Upward Bound. (Am. Compl ¶¶ 32, 9.) Rudman took no action in response to Plaintiff's complaint, telling Plaintiff instead to not "let Ferrandina upset her." (Id. ¶ 35.) However, in May 2006, Plaintiff's co-workers complained to Rudman about Ferrandina's behavior toward Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 37.) Upward Bound hired a law firm to conduct an internal investigation, and Ferrandina was subsequently fired in August 2006. (Id. ¶ 40.)
After firing Ferrandina, Rudman and Upward Bound retaliated against Plaintiff by refusing to give her new business and removing her from at least one account. (Id. ¶¶ 41-43.) Additionally, Rudman rebuffed Plaintiff's attempts to take on new work and generate additional business. (Id. ¶¶ 44-47.) In October 2007, Plaintiff was removed from her office and relocated to an area separate from the rest of her co-workers, even though Upward Bound had four empty offices available. (Id. ¶ 48.) During this period, Plaintiff felt like she "was going to have a nervous breakdown," lost her self-esteem and self-confidence, feared losing her job, and felt humiliated at work. (DeCurtis Decl. ¶ 31) In April 2008, Rudman fired Plaintiff, claiming Plaintiff had failed to meet her sales targets. (Am. Compl. ¶ 49.) Another person was hired to fill Plaintiff's position. (Id. ¶ 50.)
In August 2009, Upward Bound ceased its operations, continuing only as a shell corporation. (Id. ¶ 51.) Thereafter, Rudman transferred Upward Bound's operations to LDA and Tzell. (Id.) As part of the transfer, at least nine former Upward Bound employees were retained by LDA and Tzell to service Upward Bound's former clients. (Id. ¶ 53.) Plaintiff, who had been fired in 2008, was not among them.
At the time Plaintiff was dismissed by Upward Bound, she earned an annual salary of approximately $90,000. (DeCurtis Decl. ¶ 36.) Plaintiff also received additional compensation for working weekends, earning $1,500 in compensation for this work in the first quarter of 2008. (Id. ¶ 37; id., Ex. B.) In 2008, Plaintiffwas also entitled to receive $2,444.16 in home phone reimbursement and $119.76 for home Internet reimbursement. (DeCurtis Decl. ¶ 38; id., Ex. B.) Although Plaintiff eventually found employment at another travel agency, her annual salary was $47,217 per year less than what she earned at Upward Bound. (DeCurtis Decl. ¶ 39; id., Ex. C.)
Plaintiff filed her original complaint on June 10, 2009, naming only Upward Bound and Ferrandina as defendants. On January 8, 2010, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, naming the additional defendants. Plaintiff brought claims for sex discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 296 et seq. ("NYSHRL"), and the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-101 et seq. ("NYCHRL"), and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., the NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL.
Because all Defendants except Tzell Travel LLC failed to answer the Amended Complaint, the Court entered default judgments against Upward Bound, Ferrandina, Rudman, and LDA on April 22, 2010, finding them liable for Plaintiff's sex discrimination claims under the state and city laws and for Plaintiff's retaliation claims under Title VII, state law, and city law. (Doc. Nos. 47-50.)2 Plaintiff settled her claims against the remaining Defendant, Tzell, and those claims were dismissed on August 11, 2010. (Doc. No. 56.) An inquest was originally scheduled for September 23, 2010, but was subsequently adjourned to October 14, 2010. On November 5, 2010, Plaintiff moved for attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k) and N.Y.C. Admin. Code. § 8-502(f), and made submissions regarding back pay, front pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages, prejudgment interest, and attorney's fees and costs. (See Pl.'s Damages Mem.) Plaintiff submitted a supplemental declaration providing additional information in support of her calculation of damages on September 16, 2011. The Court has received nothing from Defendants.
"[A] default judgment entered on well-pleaded allegations in a complaint establishes a defendant's liability." Bambu Sales, Inc. v. Ozak Trading Inc., 58 F.3d 849, 854 (2d Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, a default judgment is not an admission of damages. "Damages, which are neither susceptible of mathematical computation nor liquidated as of the default, usually must be established by the plaintiff in an evidentiary proceeding in which the defendant has the opportunity to contest the amount." Greyhound Exhibitgroup, Inc., 973 F.2d at 158. The court may either hold a hearing to fix damages or rely upon affidavits and documentary evidence. Tamarin v. Adam Caterers, Inc., 13 F.3d 51, 54 (2d Cir. 1993). As noted above, the Court held an inquest in October 2010 and has reviewed Plaintiff's damages submissions, which were unopposed by Defendants.
Violations of "Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL entitle a plaintiff to compensatory damages for pecuniary loss as well as pain and suffering." Moore v. Houlihan's Restaurant, Inc., No. 07 Civ. 3129 (ENV) (RER), 2011 WL 2470023, at *4 . "Victims of employment discrimination are entitled to reasonable damages that would make the plaintiff 'whole for injuries suffered on account of unlawful employment discrimination.'" Id. (quoting Greenway v. Buffalo Hilton Hotel, 143 F.3d 47, 54 (2d Cir. 1988)). In this action, Plaintiff seeks several different forms of economic damages, including: (1) back pay, (2) front pay, (3) compensatory damages, and (4) punitive damages, as well as interest. (See Pl.'s Damages Mem. at 8.) The Court will consider each in turn.
Back pay is available under Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g)(1); N.Y. Exec. Law. § 297(4), (9); N.Y.C Admin. Code § 8-502(a). "An award of back pay, although not automatic, is generally awarded absent special circumstances." Moore, 2011 WL 2470023, at *4. A plaintiff is ordinarily "entitled to an award of back pay from the date of her termination until the date of judgment." Saulpaugh v. Monroe Cmty. Hosp., 4 F.3d 134, 144 (2d Cir. 1993). The award typically consists of "lost salary, including anticipated raises, and fringe benefits." Id. at 145.
Though Upward Bound ceased to exist after Plaintiff was fired, the Court concludes that, based on the experiences of her colleagues, Plaintiff's employment would have continued with LDA and or Tzell. She is therefore entitled to the compensation she would have earned from April 3, 2008 through the present. Plaintiff seeks back pay damages in the amount of $185,087.56. Having reviewed Plaintiff's calculations, the Court concludes they are sufficient to justify the award sought. Accordingly, Plaintiff is awarded back pay in the amount of $185,087.56.
In cases where reinstatement is not possible because the employer-employee relationship has been irreparably damaged by animosity associated with the litigation, a court may award front pay as equitable relief appropriate to effectuate the purposes of...
To continue reading
Request your trial