Gilbert v. Indeed, Inc.

Decision Date19 January 2021
Docket Number20-cv-3826 (LJL)
Parties Taylor GILBERT, Plaintiff, v. INDEED, INC., et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

513 F.Supp.3d 374

Taylor GILBERT, Plaintiff,
v.
INDEED, INC., et al., Defendants.

20-cv-3826 (LJL)

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

Signed January 19, 2021


513 F.Supp.3d 382

Martin S. Hyman, Matthew Christopher Daly, Golenbock Eiseman Assor Bell & Peskoe LLP, Tiffany, MA, Young & Ma LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff.

Anne Rose Dana, Courtney Sophie Stieber, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, New York, NY, Aron Zwi Karabel, Waller Lansden, Nashville, TN, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

LEWIS J. LIMAN, United States District Judge:

Defendants Indeed, Inc. ("Indeed"), Alexa Wachstein ("Wachstein"), Gabrielle Verbaro ("Verbaro"), and Michelle Lam ("Lam," and collectively, the "Indeed Defendants") move to compel arbitration and to stay the action or, in the alternative, to dismiss the claims against them. Defendant

513 F.Supp.3d 383

Aaron Schwartz ("Schwartz") moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or, in the alternative, to compel arbitration.

For the following reasons, the motion to compel arbitration by the Indeed Defendants is granted and the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction by Schwartz is granted.

BACKGROUND

I. Plaintiff's Allegations

Plaintiff Taylor Gilbert ("Plaintiff" or "Gilbert") is a Senior Account Executive at Indeed where she has been employed since 2015. Dkt. No. 1 (the "Complaint" or "Compl.") ¶¶ 35, 40. Indeed is a foreign business corporation organized under the laws of the state of Delaware. Id. ¶ 24. Its principal business is to provide a search engine for job listings that connect prospective employees with employers. Id. ¶ 30. Defendant Schwartz, who no longer works at Indeed, was a manager based in Austin, Texas. Id. ¶¶ 3, 27. Defendant Wachstein was Plaintiff's supervisor. Id. ¶¶ 6, 26. Defendant Verbaro was a human resources manager at Indeed. Id. ¶¶ 12, 28. Defendant Lam was Plaintiff's manager until her employment at Indeed ended in March 2019. Id. ¶¶ 10, 29. The individual defendants other than Schwartz worked in the New York office of Indeed. Id. ¶¶ 26, 28-29.

The Complaint tells a brutal story in several parts. The first part relates to the sexual assault and rape of Plaintiff. On July 13, 2015, Plaintiff, then 22 years old, began her employment at Indeed as an Account Executive based in New York City. Id. ¶¶ 34-35. In late July 2015, less than two weeks after she started her job with Indeed, Plaintiff attended a multi-day orientation/training event in Stamford, Connecticut. Id. ¶¶ 3, 44. While she was at the event, Schwartz—who was then a senior employee and an Indeed manager based in Austin, Texas—sexually assaulted and raped her. Id. ¶¶ 3-5, 45, 49-54.

The next day, Gilbert suffered through the rest of the day's training session. She returned to New York City following the orientation trip on July 24, 2015. Id. ¶ 55. On July 25, 2015, she went to Mount Sinai Beth Israel Hospital and completed a rape kit. Id. ¶ 56. She also told her parents and others about the rape but did not immediately tell her supervisors. Id.

Her abuse did not end with the 2015 rape. In the fall of 2015, a new male hire at Indeed sent Gilbert a snapchat of himself in front of a mirror wearing only a towel. Id. ¶ 66. Gilbert reported this incident to her then-supervisor, Wachstein, who disregarded it. Id. In December 2015, another Indeed employee "hit" on Gilbert over Indeed's intracompany chat system and tried to solicit her to go to a bar with him. Id. ¶ 68. Also in December 2015, following a company holiday party, another Indeed employee repeatedly commented on Gilbert's breasts and tried to touch her even as she rebuffed his advances. Id. ¶ 67. That same employee, in February 2016, solicited Gilbert for oral sex. Id. ¶ 69.

After suffering in silence for several months, Gilbert reported the rape to her then-supervisor, Wachstein, in March 2016 after seeing a person whom she believed to be Schwartz in the New York office. Id. ¶¶ 6, 59-60. She also told Wachstein how uncomfortable she felt when men at Indeed continuously "hit on" and sexually assaulted her. Id. ¶ 60. Wachstein acknowledged that Schwartz's conduct was criminal, that there was proof of rape, that Schwartz may have raped others, and that she (Wachstein) had a duty to report it, but stated that she would not do so. Id. ¶¶ 6, 61-62; Dkt. No. 43-1. Plaintiff also reported the rape to a more senior Indeed

513 F.Supp.3d 384

employee in the spring/summer of 2016, but Indeed took no action. Compl. ¶ 63.

Instead, Plaintiff's abuse continued. In July 2017, yet another male Indeed employee pressured Gilbert to have sex with him; she rejected his advances. Id. ¶ 70. In the fall of 2017, at an Indeed-sponsored happy hour, a male Indeed senior account executive told Gilbert she was his "type" and he would date her if he did not already have a girlfriend. Id. ¶ 71. In December 2018, the wife of an Indeed employee told Gilbert that a male Indeed employee at a party had groped her breasts. Id. ¶ 72. In October 2019, Schwartz—still an Indeed employee at the time—sent Gilbert a LinkedIn invitation. Id. ¶ 74. Schwartz then was sent to the New York office where Gilbert was working. Id.

The second part of Plaintiff's allegations relates to the medical conditions that Plaintiff developed in the aftermath of the rape and Indeed's reaction to those conditions. Plaintiff alleges that she has suffered from depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and other physical and psychological illnesses as a result of the rape, Indeed's failure to take action against Schwartz and decision to promote him and allow him to return to work, and the ongoing sexual harassment and hostile work environment she experienced at Indeed. Id. ¶ 75. Those conditions included: (1) pervasive and severe migraines, id. ¶¶ 76, 78; (2) stroke-like symptoms for which she was admitted to the hospital, id. ¶ 77; (3) hospitalization for difficile bacterium, id. ¶ 79; and (4) positive tests for lupus and antiphospholipid syndrome, id. She did not experience any signs of those ailments prior to the rape. Id. ¶ 83. Gilbert alleges that she needed reasonable accommodations to address her medical conditions, that Defendants Lam and Verbaro and others were aware of the medical conditions, and that she was not only denied reasonable accommodations but was unlawfully discriminated against based on her medical conditions. Id. ¶¶ 80-83.

In the third part of her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges a hostile work environment at Indeed through a pattern and practice of favoring through promotions and other beneficial treatment women who engage in sexual and/or romantic relationships with male colleagues. Id. ¶¶ 85-87. Plaintiff alleges Indeed discriminated against her for her failure to engage in such relationships, her objection to them, and her medical conditions. Id. ¶¶ 88-98. She identifies by pseudonym four specific women who were equally or less qualified than Plaintiff and identifies, sometimes by name, the male employees with whom they had sexual relations; she alleges that they were promoted and given favorable treatment because they, and not Plaintiff, were willing to have sex with male employees at Indeed and did not object to the hostile work environment at Indeed and did not have disabilities. Id. ¶¶ 85-87, 91-92.

Finally, Plaintiff alleges that she was retaliated against, given negative reviews, and denied reasonable accommodations because of her complaints, her refusal to acquiesce to the culture at Indeed, and her medical conditions. Id. ¶¶ 93-96; 99-107.

Plaintiff brings a series of claims against various groups of Defendants. These include federal law claims against Indeed under: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), for gender discrimination, sexual harassment, hostile work environment ("Count I"); the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. ("ADA"), for discrimination based on disability and/or perceived disability ("Count II") and for failure to provide a reasonable accommodation ("Count VI"); and Title VII and the ADA for retaliation ("Count VII").

513 F.Supp.3d 385

She brings state law claims against all Defendants under the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL") for gender harassment and disability/perceived disability discrimination ("Count III"), New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL") for gender harassment and disability discrimination ("Count IV"), and the New York State Equal Pay Law, N.Y. Lab. L. § 194 ("Count VIII"). She further brings state law claims against Indeed, Verbaro, and Lam for failure to provide a reasonable accommodation in violation of the NYSHRL and NYCHRL ("Count VI").1

She also brings state law claims against Indeed, Wachstein, Verbaro and Lam under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL for retaliation ("Count VII"),2 and claims against Schwartz, Wachstein, Verbaro, and Lam under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL for aiding and abetting Indeed's gender harassment discrimination and retaliation ("Count V").

Finally, Plaintiff brings state law claims against Schwartz pursuant to N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 213-c for violation of N.Y. Penal Law § 130.25 ("Count IX") and to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Tantaros v. Fox News Network, LLC
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • 27 Agosto 2021
    ...Commc'ns, Inc. v. Garfin , No. 20 CIV. 7049 (KPF), 2021 WL 694549, at *13-14 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2021) ; Gilbert v. Indeed, Inc. , 513 F.Supp.3d 374, 396-400 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) ; White v. WeWork Cos. , No. 20 Civ. 1800 (CM), 2020 WL 3099969, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. June 11, 2020) ; Latif v. Morgan Stan......
  • Lobel v. CCAP Auto Lease, Ltd.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 8 Abril 2022
    ...claims" brought by the party must themselves implicate interstate activity (see Plf's Mem. at 10; see also Gilbert v Indeed, Inc., 513 F.Supp.3d 374, 400 [SD NY 2021] [holding that "[u]nder the plain language of Section 2 of the FAA, the relevant question is not whether the claim arises fro......
  • Lobel v. CCAP Auto Lease, Ltd.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 8 Abril 2022
    ...claims" brought by the party must themselves implicate interstate activity (see Plf's Mem. at 10; see also Gilbert v Indeed, Inc., 513 F.Supp.3d 374, 400 [SD NY 2021] [holding that "[u]nder the plain language of Section 2 of the FAA, the relevant question is not whether the claim arises fro......
  • Trombetta v. Novocin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 20 Diciembre 2021
    ... ANNAMARIE TROMBETTA, Plaintiff, v. NORB NOVOCIN, MARIE NOVOCIN, ESTATE AUCTIONS, INC., WILLIAM SEIPPEL, WORTHPOINT CORPORATION, Defendants. No. 18-CV-993 (RA) United States District ... 1849658, at *7 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. May 21, 2012),. Gilbert v. Indeed, Inc. , 513 F.Supp.3d 374, 414. (S.D.N.Y. 2021). This generic email thus does not ......
  • 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