Estronza v. RJF Sec. & Investigations, Robert Foglia, Joseph Foglia, Lindsay Park Hous. Corp.
| Decision Date | 11 November 2014 |
| Docket Number | 12-CV-1444 (NGG) (JO) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
| Parties | CARLOS ESTRONZA, Plaintiff, v. RJF SECURITY & INVESTIGATIONS, ROBERT FOGLIA, JOSEPH FOGLIA, LINDSAY PARK HOUSING CORP., and CORA D. AUSTIN, Defendants. |
On May 31, 2013, Plaintiff Carlos Estronza filed his Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), asserting claims of breach of contract, wrongful termination, retaliatory conduct, hostile work environment, and race and age discrimination against Defendants RJF Security & Investigations ("RJF"), Robert Foglia, and Joseph Foglia (collectively, "RJF Defendants"), and a claim of tortious interference with contract against Defendants Lindsay Park Housing Corp. ("LPHC") and Cora D. Austin (collectively, "LPH Defendants"). (SAC (Dkt. 33).) All Defendants moved to dismiss the SAC for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff opposed Defendants' motions. The court referred the motions to Magistrate Judge James Orenstein for a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(1). (Apr. 10, 2014, Order (Dkt. 46); Aug. 1, 2014, Order.)
On August 27, 2014, Judge Orenstein issued an R&R recommending that the court deny RJF Defendants' motion to dismiss as to Plaintiff's race discrimination and hostile workenvironment claims, but grant the motions in all other respects.1 (R&R (Dkt. 48) at 1, 20.) Plaintiff submitted objections to the R&R ("Plaintiff's Objection") on September 30, 2014.2 Plaintiff raised two objections to the R&R, arguing that Judge Orenstein (1) "misinterpreted the case law surrounding the contract of employment, absent a written contract of employment," and (2) "improperly attributed lack of temporal proximity between specified events in evaluating the sufficiency" of Plaintiff s tortious interference and retaliatory conduct claims. (Id. at 2.) No other objections to the R&R were filed. LPH Defendants filed a response to Plaintiff's Objection on October 14, 2014. For the reasons explained below, Judge Orenstein's R&R is ADOPTED IN PART and MODIFIED IN PART.
On February 17, 2012, Plaintiff Carlos Estronza filed a complaint (the "Initial Complaint") in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, asserting breach of contract, wrongful termination, retaliatory conduct, hostile work environment, race discrimination, and age discrimination claims against RJF Defendants; a tortious interference with contract claim against LPH Defendants; and a claim for punitive damages against all Defendants. .) On March 23, 2012, the LPH Defendants removed the action to federal court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction.3 (Not. of Removal.) The LPH Defendants then moved to dismiss the claims asserted against them under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (LPH First Mot. to Dismiss (Dkt. 8)), and the RJF Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) (). Plaintiff opposed Defendants' motions. (Opp'n to LPH First Mot. to Dismiss (Dkt. 14); Opp'n to RJF Mot. for J. on the Pleadings (Dkt. 20).)
The court dismissed Plaintiff's breach of contract, wrongful termination, retaliatory conduct, and tortious interference with contract claims, and granted Plaintiff leave to amend the Initial Complaint to address the pleading deficiencies with respect to those claims. (Mar. 5, 2013, Order (Dkt. 23).) The court denied RJF Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's age and race discrimination and hostile work environment claims, on the grounds that RJF Defendants conceded in their reply that "Plaintiff has pled an adequate discrimination claim based upon age and national origin." (Id. at 6 (quoting RJF Reply in Supp. of Mot. for J. on the Pleadings (Dkt. 21) at 4) (internal quotation marks omitted).) Plaintiff conceded that New York law does not recognize an independent cause of action for punitive damages, and his claim for punitive damages was deemed withdrawn. (Id.)
Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on April 3, 2013. (FAC (Dkt. 24).) LPH Defendants requested a pre-motion conference in anticipation of filing a motion to dismiss the FAC pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Mot. for PMC (Dkt. 25).) After a pre-motion conference (see May 6, 2013, Min. Entry (Dkt. 26)) and a subsequent telephone conference with Judge Orenstein (see May 14, 2013, Min. Entry(Dkt. 28)), Plaintiff filed the SAC on May 31, 2013 with Defendants' consent, with the intention of adding factual allegations to address the alleged deficiencies in pleading.
In evaluating Defendants' motions to dismiss, the court accepts as true the following allegations from Plaintiff's SAC.4
Defendants Robert and Joseph Foglia are, respectively, the President and Vice President of RJF, a security firm. (R&R at 1.) Defendant Cora D. Austin is the Chairperson of the Board of LPHC, which engaged RJF to provide security services at its Mitchell-Lama housing cooperative. (Id.) Plaintiff, who is Hispanic, was hired by RJF in March 2007, when he was forty-four years old, as a licensed security guard. (Id. at 1-2; SAC ¶ 16.) Plaintiff earned $8.75 per hour when he was first hired by RJF, and earned $9.75 per hour at the time he was terminated in September 2011. (SAC ¶¶ 68-69.)
Plaintiff did not sign a written employment contract with RJF. (R&R at 2.) When he was hired, RJF gave him a booklet entitled "RJF Security & Investigations Rules and Procedures" (the "Rules"), which included a section entitled "Grounds for Termination."5 (Id.; SAC ¶¶ 18-20, 22; see also Rules at 4.) Plaintiff was required to "thoroughly review" the Rules and sign an acknowledgement that he had received the booklet. (R&R at 2; SAC ¶¶ 18-20.) When given the Rules, Plaintiff was told "that this booklet would be his conduct bible, and that he would never be fired as long as he followed its rules and procedures." (R&R at 2; SAC ¶ 21.)Based on that promise of job security conditioned on following the Rules, and RJF's promise to accommodate his need for a daytime schedule in order to care for his elderly mother in the evenings, Plaintiff resigned from his prior job, stopped seeking other employment, and began to work for RJF. (R&R at 2; SAC ¶¶ 24-31.)
Joseph Foglia held "liquor, cocaine and sex filled parties" at the RJF office, which managers and staff members attended while on duty. (R&R at 2 (quoting SAC ¶ 33).) Joseph Foglia provided the liquor and cocaine for these parties. (SAC ¶ 34.) Plaintiff did not attend these parties. (R&R at 2.) Plaintiff "expressed concerns" about these parties to Joseph and Robert Foglia and Austin. (Id. (quoting SAC ¶¶ 41-42).)
Robert and Joseph Foglia have subjected Plaintiff to offensive and abusive treatment (see SAC ¶¶ 70-76), and Joseph Foglia has made the following specific remarks:
Joseph Foglia also told other employees to "make that spic[']s life miserable." (Id. (quoting SAC ¶ 76).)
After Joseph Foglia took over responsibility for running RJF, '"only the Caucasian personnel ... [were] promoted and given raises,'" and "only those security guards who regularly attended Joseph Foglia's parties were assigned overtime hours." (R&R at 3 (quoting SAC ¶ 77).) Plaintiff regularly volunteered for overtime work, but he was never assigned any. (R&Rat 2.) He was also never promoted, even though he was never found to have violated the Rules. (Id.)
Some employees were not disciplined despite conduct that subjected them to immediate suspension or termination under the Rules, such as sleeping on duty, being intoxicated on duty, and being arrested; one such individual regularly attended the parties hosted by Joseph Foglia. (R&R at 3; SAC ¶¶ 57-61.) Other employees were hired despite a lack of qualifications. (R&R at 3.)
Plaintiff's fiancée filed a lawsuit against LPH Defendants in approximately October 2010, alleging discrimination against her disabled son. (R&R at 3.) Defendants incorrectly believed that Plaintiff had assisted his fiancée in gathering evidence for that lawsuit.6 (Id.; SAC ¶¶ 80-81.) Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff was assigned to patrol a building "known to have problems with drug dealing and prostitution"—a building to which he had rarely been assigned previously—and employees of RJF who regularly attended Joseph Foglia's parties began to ignore Plaintiff. (R&R at 3; SAC ¶¶ 84-87.) Additionally, after the lawsuit was filed, Austin filed a complaint with RJF, claiming (incorrectly) that Plaintiff had not been on duty in his assigned building on an unspecified date, and shortly thereafter instructed Joseph Foglia to fire Plaintiff. (R&R at 3; SAC ¶¶ 88-92.) In August 2011, however, Joseph Foglia conducted a performance evaluation of Plaintiff, and Plaintiff received a perfect...
To continue reading
Request your trial