Green v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.
| Decision Date | 28 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | 15-CV-8204 (ALC) |
| Parties | TAMMY L. GREEN, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY and ROOSEVELT I. LARRIER, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Due to the nature of the allegations in this case, a brief summary of this Opinion is helpful. Plaintiff alleges a long and drawn out history of harassment and gender-based mistreatment. In her Second Amended Complaint, Ms. Tammy Green, a career Track Worker for the New York City Transit Authority, states that an affair with her supervisor sparked retaliatory activity that created a hostile work environment and adverse employment action. Specifically, Ms. Green alleges that she was sent unwarranted pornographic material, she was surveilled by her coworkers, she was physically touched and attacked, and had an axe swung at her head. Moreover, Ms. Green was called names, falsely accused of making bombs, and forced to endure constant and unwarranted sexual advances and remarks.
Plaintiff's claims span a period of years, some of them dating back to 2013. Her liberally construed Second Amended Complaint includes twenty-three causes of action, including age, race, gender, and disability discrimination, claims of sexual harassment and sexual violence, as well allegations of violations of the Equal Pay Act, Rehabilitation Act, and Whistleblower Protection Act, among other things. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as it relates to Plaintiff's gender-based discrimination claims, including retaliation and hostile work environment. At this stage, Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to support her claims that warrant discovery. Defendants' Motion is otherwise GRANTED for the reasons stated herein.
Plaintiff Tammy Green (hereinafter, "Plaintiff" or "Ms. Green") brings this action against Defendants New York City Transit Authority (hereinafter, "NYCTA") and Roosevelt I. Larrier (hereinafter, "Mr. Larrier") (collectively, "Defendants") for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA"), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("Rehabilitation Act"), the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), the Equal Pay Act of 1683 ("EPA"), the Occupational Safety and Health Act ("OSHA"), the Whistleblower Protection Act ("WPA"), and Presidential Executive Order 11246 of 1965, among other things.1
Ms. Green filed her Complaint on October 16, 2015. ECF No. 2. She filed her Amended Complaint on February 23, 2016. ECF No. 14. On December 11, 2017, the Parties informed the Court that they had reached a settlement agreement. ECF No. 75. Ultimately, a settlement was not agreed upon, and Defendants moved for leave to file a motion to dismiss this case after Plaintiff filed her Second Amended Complaint. ECF Nos. 79-81. On April 27, 2018, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss, along with supporting documents. ECF Nos. 88-92. Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss came via two letters, one filed on May 31, 2018, and another on June 6, 2018. ECF Nos. 95-96. Defendants filed their Reply to Plaintiff'sResponse on June 21, 2018. ECF No. 99. Defendants' Motion is deemed fully briefed. After careful review, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Ms. Green has been employed by the NYCTA since June 27, 1994. Second Amended Complaint, at 17 (hereinafter, "SAC"). She has held titles such as Track Worker and Track Worker Specialist. Id. Plaintiff alleges that she began an affair with her supervisor, Mr. Larrier, in 2012. SAC, p. 41, at ¶ 5. During their relationship, Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Larrier would send obscene text messages and images, that he would take inappropriate pictures of her, and that he divulged the details of their relationship to Ms. Green's co-workers. Id. at ¶¶ 7-9. This led to co-workers making comments to her, including one instance where a co-worker called her a "cheap-bitch." Id. at ¶¶ 9-10. As Ms. Green's relationship with Mr. Larrier began to sour, Mr. Larrier allegedly began to "buckle" Plaintiff's knees or "body check" her as she was walking into work. Id. at ¶¶ 10-11. Additionally, Mr. Larrier sent Plaintiff a total of fourteen text messages containing sexually graphic images and propositions between November 5, 2013 and June 24, 2014. Id. pp. 20-22. Plaintiff further alleges that at an unspecified point in time, Mr. Larrier told fellow employees and NYCTA personnel that Ms. Green gave him a sexually transmitted disease. Id. pp. 18; 24 at ¶ 21. Ms. Green claims that all of this was done in an effort to shame, embarrass, and humiliate her in front of her co-workers with the ultimate goal of forcing her to quit or be fired. Id. Plaintiff then requested a new work placement, which also signified the end of her relationship with Mr. Larrier. Id. p. 42 at ¶ 13.
Plaintiff alleges that following the end of her relationship with Mr. Larrier she was "skipped" over for opportunities to work overtime. Id. pp. 19; 42 at ¶ 14. Furthermore, Plaintiff endured a string of harassing conduct including unidentified individuals tampering with her car,phone, work equipment, and other personal belongings following her breakup with Mr. Larrier. Id. pp. 25-26; 42 at ¶¶ 15, 18-19; 43 at ¶ 26. In the summer of 2014, unidentified co-workers accused Plaintiff of trying to poison them, accused plaintiff of "being a terrorist ... carrying a bomb, and spreading anthrax," accused plaintiff of selling drugs, and Charles Armstrong accused Plaintiff of being "bi-polar and difficult to work with." Id. pp 19; 22; 24-25; 42 at ¶¶ 16, 20. Plaintiff further alleges that she was surveilled at work. Id. pp. 19; 23; 32. In addition, Plaintiff claims that she was approached and touched by coworkers in threatening and inappropriate ways thus requiring her to "call out sick to avoid them." Id. pp. 23; 42 at ¶ 20.
On July 12, 2015, Plaintiff alleges that "Levy was swinging [an] AX (sic) in a repeated back & forth motion at the back of my head." Id. pp. 14; 24; 42 at ¶ 17.2 On July 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") Intake Questionnaire. Zinonos Decl. Ex. B, ECF No. 90. Plaintiff claimed that she was discriminated against on the basis of her race, sex, age, and disability. Id. at 2. She further stated that she was retaliated against, providing the axe incident with Levy as the discriminatory and retaliatory conduct. Id. Plaintiff stated that she felt that the axe incident "was a form of harassment to force me to leave my current job title." Id. When asked to identify a reason for the alleged discriminatory act, Plaintiff stated that she knew of "none" other than "maybe b/c I was too slow at my job & because of other statements made to harass me to force me to leave." Id. The EEOC issued a Dismissal and Notice of Right to Sue letter on September 16, 2015. See EEOC Notice of Rights Letter, SAC, p. 16.
After receiving her EEOC Notice of Rights Letter, Plaintiff alleges that a co-worker named Payton inappropriately touched her while she was signing into work on October 4, 2015. SAC, p. 15; 24. Plaintiff filed this action on October 16, 2015. ECF No. 1. On an unspecified date in 2017, Plaintiff's co-worker Nankoo confronted Plaintiff with lewd and aggressive sexual remarks and advances. SAC, p. 23; 43 at ¶ 23. Roughly a month after that, a driver at "another job site" named Wheeler inappropriately propositioned Plaintiff. Id. pp. 23-24; 43 at ¶ 24. In a separate incident, Plaintiff claims that Donald Angel "touched my legs in the truck and made me feel incredibly uncomfortable and demeaned." Id. pp.24; 43 at ¶ 25.
Plaintiff's SAC further alleges that she was told that women were not suited for the type of work she was doing. Id. p. 43 at ¶ 29. Additionally, Luis Rodriguez, one of her supervisors, called Ms. Green a "bitch" on "several occasions" as well as sent her to "asbestos jobs" without giving her the opportunity to bring the proper equipment. Id. pp. 28; 43 at ¶¶ 30-31. When Plaintiff complained about working asbestos jobs due to her pregnancy, she was later reprimanded for her complaints. Id. Plaintiff adds that Mr. Rodriguez did not know she was pregnant at the time. Id. Ms. Green also alleges that "hours were being shorted from her check" by Luis Medina. Id. p. 29. Moreover, according to Plaintiff, she had been using soap at the NYCTA that contained a known carcinogen that has been "found to disrupt the endocrone (sic) system in women." Id. p. 33.
Plaintiff's final claim alleges that she was recently denied a promotion to the title of Power Distribution Maintainer. Id. p. 44 at ¶ 33. She claims that she was denied the promotion because she had neck surgery, so she missed some time. Id. Further, Plaintiff had been taking days off because she "did not feel comfortable going into work." Id.
When considering a motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a court should "draw all reasonable inferences in [the plaintiff's] favor, assume all well-pleaded factual allegations to be true, and determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief." Faber v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 648 F.3d 98, 104 (2d Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, "[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
The Court's function on a motion to dismiss is "not to weigh the evidence that might be presented at a trial but merely to determine whether the complaint itself is legally sufficient." Goldman v. Belden, 754 F.2d 1059, 1067 (2d Cir. 1985). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable...
To continue reading
Request your trial