Ellison v. Chartis Claims, Inc.

Decision Date23 September 2016
Docket NumberNo. 502167/2012.,502167/2012.
Citation46 N.Y.S.3d 474 (Table)
Parties John B. ELLISON, Plaintiff, v. CHARTIS CLAIMS, INC. a/k/a American International Group Domestic Claims, Inc., Andrew Barberis, Bryan Pedro, Michael Muscarella, Sheryl Rein, Marti Lametta, Karen Massie and Richard Woollams, Defendants.
CourtNew York Supreme Court

46 N.Y.S.3d 474 (Table)

John B. ELLISON, Plaintiff,
v.
CHARTIS CLAIMS, INC. a/k/a American International Group Domestic Claims, Inc., Andrew Barberis, Bryan Pedro, Michael Muscarella, Sheryl Rein, Marti Lametta, Karen Massie and Richard Woollams, Defendants.

No. 502167/2012.

Supreme Court, Kings County, New York.

Sept. 23, 2016.


Joseph T. Roccanova, Esq., Roccanova Law, PC, Huntington, Counsel for plaintiff John B. Ellison.

Steven Seltzer, Esq., The Seltzer Law Group P.C., New York, Co–Counsel for plaintiff John B. Ellison.

Paul Hastings, LLP, New York, Counsel for defendants.

KAREN B. ROTHENBERG, J.

The following e-filed papers read herein:

Papers Numbered
Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause/Petition/Cross Motion and Affidavits (Affirmations) Annexed 205, 207–268 295–619 621 652 656 658–660
Opposing Affidavits (Affirmations) 296–619 621661
Reply Affidavits (Affirmations) 624–639 641–649
Affidavit (Affirmation) Memoranda of Law 206 620 623 650 655657

Upon the foregoing papers, in this action by plaintiff John B. Ellison (plaintiff) against defendants Chartis Claims, Inc. a/k/a American International Group Domestic Claims, Inc. (AIG), Andrew Barberis (Barberis), Bryan Pedro (Pedro), Michael Muscarella (Muscarella), Sheryl Rein (Rein), Marti Lametta (Lametta), Karen Massie (Massie), and Richard Woollams (Woollams) (collectively, defendants) alleging discrimination, retaliation, and harassment, and seeking monetary, injunctive, and declaratory relief, defendants move for an order, pursuant to CPLR 3212, granting summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's second amended complaint with prejudice. Plaintiff cross-moves for an order: (1) granting him leave to interpose a third amended complaint which adds a tenth cause of action against Lametta and Rein for aiding and abetting discriminatory conduct, (2) deeming his third amended complaint served upon defendants, (3) granting him summary judgment in his favor on his third cause of action for salary discrimination, and (4) granting summary judgment on his seventh, eighth, and ninth causes of action for a declaratory judgment that the promissory note, pursuant to which defendants claim to have terminated his employment, is unenforceable. Plaintiff also cross-moves for an order: (1) granting leave to file a sur-reply addressing the new arguments and information set forth in defendants' reply papers dated February 5, 2016, identified on pages 42 and 43 of his accompanying memorandum of law, or, alternatively, striking those arguments and information from the record, (2) striking pages 15 through 20 of defendants' reply memorandum of law dated February 5, 2016 and all information contained therein if the court is not inclined to grant discovery on those issues, and (3) striking all references and information concerning the use of company credit cards by AIG employees, other than him, contained in defendants' August 5, 2015 memorandum of law (including page 6 thereof) and defendants' February 5, 2016 reply memorandum of law (including pages 9 and 10 thereof).

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is an African American male, who, in April 2000, became affiliated with AIG as a paralegal at a starting salary of $35,000. In September 2001, plaintiff received a salary increase of 7.1%, increasing his salary to $37,500. Plaintiff transferred to a claims analyst position, Analyst I, in 2002. In March 2003, plaintiff received a salary increase of 6.66%, increasing his salary to $40,000. In early 2004, plaintiff was promoted to Analyst II, after being interviewed by Muscarella, and was assigned to AIG's Complex West Claims Unit (the CW unit). Due to his promotion, effective January 2004, plaintiff received a salary increase of 12.5%, increasing his salary to $45,000. In January 2005, plaintiff received a salary increase of 12%, increasing his salary to $50,400. In January 2006, plaintiff received a salary increase of 7.14%, increasing his salary to $54,000. In January 2007, plaintiff received a salary increase of 5%, increasing his salary to $56,700. On December 31, 2007, plaintiff was promoted to Senior Analyst within the CW unit. Due to his promotion, plaintiff received a salary increase of 8.99%, increasing his salary to $61,800. In December 2008, plaintiff received a salary increase of 3.56%, increasing his salary to $64,000. In June 2010, plaintiff received a salary increase of 2.5%, increasing his salary to $65,600.

Plaintiff asserts that the excess claims department at AIG, which includes the CW unit and had more than 200 claims adjusters, had only four other black adjusters during the time that he worked there. Plaintiff claims that during the seven-year period that he worked as a Senior Analyst for AIG, non-black AIG employees that performed substantially the same duties and responsibilities he did received higher salaries than his.

From 2003 to 2007, Woollams, a senior vice-president at AIG and chief claims officer, directly approved plaintiff's salary. Plaintiff alleges that he requested raises from 2007 to 2011, and claims that his requests for these raises were repeatedly denied, and that his salary was frozen in 2009, whereas the salaries of his non-black counterparts were not frozen during that year. He also points to the fact that he only received a 2.5% raise in June 2010.

Plaintiff allegedly requested promotions between 2009 and 2011, and submitted applications for the position of Complex Director in the CW unit and in the primary claims unit in February, 2009, June 2009, August 2009, December, 2009, March, 2010, February 2011 and June 2011. He was not promoted. The individuals who were promoted to the position of Complex Director were claims handlers who were not black.

Plaintiff claims that in May 2004, his manager, Muscarella, planned a trip to London, England to meet with AIG's London underwriters and claims managers who were responsible for handling the Treaty book of business. Plaintiff alleges that he was the most knowledgeable member in the CW unit regarding Treaty claims, but Muscarella did not select him to accompany him to London, and, instead, selected William Boyle (Boyle), a white claims adjuster, who allegedly lacked direct knowledge or experience with Treaty claims. As a result, plaintiff complained to Muscarella's supervisor, Dave Crowe (Crowe), that the selection of Boyle was racially discriminatory treatment. Crowe then reported this complaint to AIG's Human Resources Department, and, thereafter, plaintiff was permitted to attend the London meeting.

In early October 2006, AIG's Internal Audit Department identified over $1,900 in unpaid personal charges that plaintiff had made using his AIG corporate credit card. These charges included expenditures by plaintiff at restaurants, liquor stores, movies theaters, pharmacies, trips taken by him to Atlantic City, and dental work. Plaintiff's use of his corporate credit card for personal expenses was a violation of AIG policy. All cardholders of the AIG corporate credit card, including plaintiff, had been sent multiple corporate communications, throughout 2005, which reminded employees that the corporate credit card was to be used only for business-related expenses.

Pedro, a senior vice-president of Excess Complex claims at AIG and plaintiff's second-level supervisor, brought the credit card charges to plaintiff's attention, and plaintiff acknowledged that he had made the personal charges and promised that he would pay off the debt. However, over two months passed without any payment by plaintiff and the card issuer, Citibank, canceled plaintiff's corporate credit card. Joe Pascotto (Pascotto), who was then the Assistant Director of AIG Treasury–Cash Management Operations, informed plaintiff of the cancellation and warned him that once his account was 180 days past due, the account would be written off by Citibank without the possibility of being reinstated. By email dated December 21, 2006, Pedro reminded plaintiff that he had to repay the personal expenses and warned him that his failure to do so "could lead to further disciplinary action up to and including termination." Plaintiff's account was written off by Citibank after it was 180 days past due. This negatively impacted AIG as Citibank deducted the balance of the debt from AIG's corporate rebate. On April 30, 2007, plaintiff ultimately paid off his corporate credit card debt.

Plaintiff alleges that he made complaints of discrimination from 2008 through 2010. Plaintiff's complaints to AIG's Human Resources Department included complaints that he was not assigned the same level of responsibilities as his white counterparts, that he was being given more minor claims, and that claims were reassigned to white claims adjusters. Plaintiff also complained to Woollams that AIG should hire more black claims adjusters. Plaintiff asserts that no actions were taken by AIG with respect to these...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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