Ellis v. Century 21 Dep't Stores

Decision Date28 September 2013
Docket NumberNo. 11–CV–2440 (MKB).,11–CV–2440 (MKB).
Citation975 F.Supp.2d 244
PartiesLori ELLIS, Plaintiff, v. CENTURY 21 DEPARTMENT STORES, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Jason Bernbach, Jeffrey M. Bernbach, Bernbach Law Firm, White Plains, NY, for Plaintiff.

Joel L. Finger, Jean L. Schmidt, Littler Mendelson P.C., New York, NY, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

MARGO K. BRODIE, District Judge.

Plaintiff Lori Ellis brings the above-captioned action against Defendant Century 21 Department Stores, alleging claims of gender discrimination based on failure to promote and retaliation 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 New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8–101 et seq. (“NYCHRL”). Defendant has moved for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied.

I. Background
a. Defendant's Management Structure

Defendant operates a chain of retail department stores that sell designer apparel and accessories to the public at discount prices. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 1; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 1.) Defendant was founded in the early 1960's by the Gindi families and currently operates seven stores that employ approximately 4,000 employees. (Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 2–3; Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 2–3.) Defendant's business is divided between merchandising and operations. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 5; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 5.) Merchandising involves the purchase, presentation and sale of the goods that Defendant sells in its stores, while operations involves running the stores and the overall business, including staffing of the stores and “profit and loss.” (Def. 56.1 ¶ 6; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 6.) The merchandising side of the business is run by co-CEO I.G. Gindi, and the operations side of the business is run by co-CEO Raymond Gindi. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 7; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 7.)

On the merchandising side of the business, a Divisional Merchandise Manager (“DMM”) leads each of the different departments, such as Men's, Ladies', Children's, Lingerie, Linens, Housewares, Cosmetic and Handbags. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 8; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 8.) The DMMs decide where to purchase the merchandise, how to price it and how to display it in stores, and they have direct financial responsibility for their department. (Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 9–10; Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 9–10.) The DMMs report to I.G. as the head of merchandising, and I.G. also functions as the DMM of the Men's department. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 11; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 11.) The Buyers and Coordinators report to the DMMs. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 12; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 12.) The Buyers locate and purchase merchandise for their department, while the Coordinators act as a liaison between the DMM and the sales staff in the stores to “ensure that there is sufficient merchandise on the selling floor and that merchandise is displayed and priced properly.” (Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 13–14; Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 13–14.)

b. Plaintiff's Initial Employment—1997 to 2007

Plaintiff was hired by Defendant on December 15, 1997, as a Handbags Coordinator, reporting to DMM Jamie Barry. (Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 16–19; Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 16–19.) Plaintiff was “responsible for making sure that the managers in the Handbags department in the stores were properly trained and scheduled and that the Company's standards were being met.” (Def. 56.1 ¶ 20; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 20.) In or about July 1998, Plaintiff was promoted to Men's Operations Coordinator, reporting directly to I.G. (Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 16, 20; Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 16, 20.) As Men's Operations Coordinator, Plaintiff performed the same duties for the Men's department as she had for the Handbags department. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 21; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 21.) She also oversaw scheduling for the holiday season, the operation of the department fitting rooms and stockrooms, and “certain operational aspects of [the department's] buying office, including devising and administering various training programs for its assistant buyers and training and supervising its clerical staff.” (Def. 56.1 ¶ 21; Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 21, 229.) Plaintiff claims that her responsibilities began to branch out beyond the Men's department, as she began “serving as an all-purpose resource for DMMs seeking help in connection with issues they encountered,” and she assisted the director of the human resources department at job fairs, troubleshooting operational issues at the company warehouse, “tending to [D]efendant's most important, or ‘VIP,’ vendors,” and running Defendant's “VIP Night.” (Pl. 56.1 ¶ 230.)

In 2001 or May 2002,1 Plaintiff became the Senior Operations Coordinator. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 22; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 22.) Plaintiff continued to report to I.G. and her responsibilities expanded to include working with the Lingerie and Shoes departments. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 22; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 22.) According to Plaintiff, she actually assumed the role of Coordinator for those two departments, as they were operating without Coordinators at that time. (Pl. 56.1 ¶ 22.) As part of this new role, she was entrusted to communicate I.G.'s vision for the company to other departments and “cultivate an interdepartmental consistency and cohesion.” (Pl. 56.1 ¶ 231.) Plaintiff also began assisting with the opening of new stores. (Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 234–37.) In 2002, Plaintiff assisted with the opening of the Morristown store. (Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 235–37.) According to General Store Manager (“GSM”) Bill O'Malley, Plaintiff was charged with orchestrating the store opening and her efforts in preparing Morristown for its launch were invaluable. (O'Malley Dep. 25:13–29:21.) O'Malley was so impressed with Plaintiff's ability to coordinate between the various divisions and her efforts to open the Morristown store successfully and on a timely basis that he saw the Morristown opening as “her success.” (O'Malley Dep. 25:13–26:25, 56:6–20.)

In July 2005, Plaintiff was promoted to Senior Merchandise Coordinator and given authority to coordinate the operational functions from the buying offices to all of the branch stores for the Men's, Ladies', Children's, Lingerie, Shoes and Handbags departments. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 23; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 23.) According to Plaintiff, in this new role she worked with the Buyers, DMMs, and store and department managers. (Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 256–58, 272–74.) Whenever a particular department's “numbers” were down, I.G. instructed the department's DMM and Coordinator to meet with Plaintiff to review any operational matters contributing to the decline and to partner with Plaintiff to address them. (Pl. 56.1 ¶ 275.) I.G. “made it known to the company's employees that ‘if they needed anything to get done’ related to operations, they should call [Plaintiff].’ (Pl. 56.1 ¶ 276 (citation omitted).) Plaintiff became responsible for training and developing managers at all levels and exercising “dotted-line supervision” over the Coordinators and GSMs, and began spending more time in the stores. (Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 255–63.) As part of her new role, Plaintiff served to “facilitate dialogue and cooperation among these many actors,” and to “bring[ ] these various individuals together to fashion the necessary solutions.” (Pl. 56.1 ¶ 256.) In 20062007, Plaintiff's role expanded even further, as she took over for Terri Schoot who had served as Project Coordinator in regard to store openings. (Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 251, 254–61.)

According to O'Malley, as the GSM of the Morristown store, he relied on Plaintiff as the “person to go to” for the corporate office, with whom he “would interact to figure out solutions” when the store or any of its departments were “not functioning to the standards of the company.” (O'Malley Dep. 27:9–15, 54:5–18, 58:4–59:21.) He turned to Plaintiff “on a daily basis,” sought her counsel on personnel matters, and enjoyed “a great working relationship” with her, particularly because of her “ab[ility] to transcend the positive.” ( Id. at 67:8–70:14.)

In each of her Coordinator positions, Plaintiff was responsible for ensuring that I.G.'s directions for merchandising were implemented in the stores and that the presentations in the stores were consistent with company standards. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 24; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 24.) While I.G. supervised Plaintiff, he gave her “a great deal of freedom.” (Def. 56.1 ¶ 26; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 26.) According to Plaintiff, I.G. assigned her “dotted-line supervision” over the other Coordinators, an arrangement that was formalized in mid-August 2010. (Pl. 56.1 ¶ 27.) According to Defendant, I.G. assigned Plaintiff to convey his instructions to the other coordinators beginning in 2006, but she did not formally supervise them. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 27.)

c. Director of Stores—2003 to 2008

From October 20, 2003 to October 11, 2008, Jeffrey Jasner was the Director of Stores, one of the top management positions. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 61; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 61.) The Director of Stores exercises operational oversight of each of Defendant's stores, developing a strategic vision for the company and supervising the top person from the human resources department. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 55; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 55.) The Director of Stores manages the operations side of the business and reports directly to Raymond. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 56; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 56.)

In 2008, Raymond heard a rumor that Jasner had an affair with Cheryl Corigliano, the GSM of Defendant's Brooklyn store. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 73; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 73.) Raymond confronted Jasner, and Jasner denied having any relationship with Corigliano. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 74; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 74.) Raymond later learned that the allegations were true, and Defendant terminated Jasner's employment on the basis of his dishonesty and poor judgment. (Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 73–75; Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 73–75.) At that time, Defendant was heading into the “all-important fourth quarter,” the months between October and December, in which [f]ailure to meet holiday sales projections would significantly affect [Defendant's] operations for the coming year.” (Def. 56.1 ¶ 77; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 77.)

According to Plaintiff, during this period she filled in as Director of Stores. (Pl. Dep. 171:19–173:2, 184:3–185:8.) She “walk[ed] the stores with the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
64 cases
  • Sethi v. Randy Narod, Erica Lee, Deborah Morrissey & Cambridge Who's Who Publ'g, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • September 30, 2013
    ...citation omitted)). However, an affidavit is only to be disregarded if it is actually inconsistent. See Ellis v. Century 21 Dep't Stores, 975 F.Supp.2d 244, 281–82 n. 29, No. 11–CV–2440, Slip Op. at p. 58 n. 29, 2013 WL 5460651, *29 n. 29 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2013) (declining to disregard te......
  • Sass v. Mta Bus Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • August 4, 2014
    ...claim after Nassar); Weber v. City of New York, 973 F.Supp.2d 227, 266 n. 22 (E.D.N.Y.2013) (same); Ellis v. Century 21 Dep't Stores, 975 F.Supp.2d 244, 278 n. 25 (E.D.N.Y.2013) (same). Other courts have done the same. See, e.g., Bethea v. City of New York, No. 11–CV2347, 2014 WL 2616897, a......
  • Campbell v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • March 26, 2015
    ...29 (2d Cir.2015) ; Russo v. New York Presbyterian Hosp., 972 F.Supp.2d 429, 454 (E.D.N.Y.2013) (same); Ellis v. Century 21 Dep't Stores, 975 F.Supp.2d 244, 279 (E.D.N.Y.2013) (same); Moore, 2013 WL 3968748, at *14 (same). The Second Circuit has yet to determine whether the “but for” causati......
  • Bowen-Hooks v. City of N.Y.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • March 31, 2014
    ...activity was a but-for cause of the alleged adverse action by the employer”); see also Ellis v. Century 21 Dep't Stores, 975 F.Supp.2d 244, 277–79, 2013 WL 5460651, at *27 (E.D.N.Y.2013) (same); Russo v. New York Presbyterian Hosp., 972 F.Supp.2d 429, 454–55 (E.D.N.Y.2013) (same); Moore v. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT