Langford v. Int'l Union of Operating Engineers

• Decision Date: 16 February 2011
• Docket Number: No. 10 Civ. 1644(RJH).,10 Civ. 1644(RJH).
• Citation: 111 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1167,765 F.Supp.2d 486
• Parties: Suzanne C. LANGFORD, Plaintiff,v.INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 30, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

765 F.Supp.2d 486

111 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1167

Suzanne C. LANGFORD, Plaintiff,

v.INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 30, et al., Defendants.

No. 10 Civ. 1644(RJH).

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

Feb. 16, 2011.

Peter W. Overs, Jr., Jeffrey Michael Norton, Randolph M. McLaughlin, Harwood Feffer LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff.

James William Versocki, Archer, Byington, Glennon & Levine, LLP, Robert Thomas McGovern, Meyer, Suozzi, English & Klein, P.C., Melville, NY, Arnold Neil Kriss, Jared Marc Lefkowitz, Brooklyn, NY, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

RICHARD J. HOLWELL, District Judge:

Plaintiff Suzanne C. Langford filed this action on March 1, 2010, asserting claims for race and sex discrimination under Title VII and violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, as well as violations of the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), N.Y. Exec. Law § 296 et seq. , and the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8–107 et seq. Langford's claims arise out of her employment with defendant Starrett City, Inc. (“Starrett”) in an apprenticeship program run by defendant International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 30 (“Local 30”). Now before the Court are defendants' motions to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3), 12(b)(6), the timing and administrative-exhaustion provisions of Title VII, and the doctrine of federal preemption. For the reasons that follow, defendants' motions to dismiss are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

BACKGROUND

For the purposes of this motion, the following facts are taken as true.

I. Alleged Discriminatory Acts During Langford's Employment with Starrett

Langford, an African American woman, began her work with Starrett on July 23, 2003, as a summer helper. (Compl. ¶ 29.) ¹ She was accepted into Local 30's apprenticeship program on March 1, 2004. ( Id. ¶ 28.) The apprenticeship program consists of training and an assignment to an employer with which Local 30 has a collective-bargaining agreement (“CBA”); it has a maximum duration of forty-two months. ( Id.) The training provided by the apprenticeship program was meant to quality apprentices for employment opportunities through the union hiring hall or the place of apprenticeship. ( Id.)

Langford received her work assignments from defendant Michael Sullivan, a white male and Local 30's shop steward, as well as other engineers and mechanics. ( Id. ¶¶ 10, 30.) The complaint details several sets of events, alleged to be motivated by Langford's sex or race, that occurred throughout her period of employment. First, it alleges that Sullivan and other white male engineers and mechanics refused to train Langford during her apprenticeship, even though they did train white apprentices. ( Id. ¶¶ 31–34.) Second, during Langford's employment, Sullivan used racially offensive terms when referring to African Americans, including calling a black engineer a “ ‘monkey’ or ‘gorilla’ ‘who should be up a tree sucking on a banana,’ calling a black female a ‘black bitch,’ and commenting that Oprah Winfrey should have ‘died in a plane crash.’ ” ( Id. ¶ 47.) Third, Sullivan and other white male engineers and mechanics would berate Langford, verbally abuse her, and give her disparate work assignments based on her sex or race. ( Id. ¶ 35.)

Fourth, Langford was assigned a number of unenviable work tasks. In December 2004, Langford was directed to clean up toxic chemicals that an operating mechanic had spilled. ( Id. ¶ 36.) In the winter of 2005, Sullivan, from inside a control room, ordered Langford to walk an ice-covered catwalk to close a valve. ( Id.) Langford walked the catwalk, but turned back before reaching the valve, “terrified” for her safety. ( Id.) Langford asked an African–American engineer, Joe Land, about the order, and Land told her that “under no circumstances should she have been ordered onto the tower or the catwalk” because the valve could have been controlled from inside the control room. ( Id.) Langford was also required to clean the men's locker room, in which photographs were displayed depicting women in various states of undress and sexually suggestive attire; her male counterparts were not required to clean the women's locker room, in which male employees would vomit and urinate. ( Id. ¶¶ 37, 38.)

II. Complaints to Local 30 and Starrett Officials

Langford was not advised of a non-discrimination or anti-harassment policy or about any procedures Starrett had adopted for filing a complaint about discrimination or harassment. ( Id. ¶ 49.) Nevertheless, Langford did complain to Local 30 and Starrett officials during her employment, although nothing was done in response to her complaints.

From May to August 2004, Langford complained to Rickford John, Starrett's Assistant Plant Director, about the conditions in the women's locker room, but nothing was done to correct them. ( Id. ¶ 39.) On March 14, 2005, she complained to John about how Sullivan yelled at her, threatened her, verbally abused her, and treated her differently because of her race and sex. ( Id. ¶ 43.) John remarked, “It seems as if things are always being done to people of color in this place,” but did nothing to remedy Langford's complaint. ( Id. ¶ 41.) Throughout her employment, Langford complained to John about the “abuse, hostility, failure to train, the sexually suggestive photographs, hostile work environment and disparate treatment she suffered at the hands of her co-workers, supervisors, and fellow union members, to no avail.” ( Id. ¶ 44.) She also complained throughout her employment about being required to clean the men's work stations on a regular basis, since that work should have been assigned to the individual who had been on duty at the time, but no action was taken on those complaints either. ( Id. ¶ 45.)

On May 31, 2005, Langford complained to Erol Ozkirbas, director of Starrett's power plant, about the sexually suggestive pictures in the men's locker room, and suggested sexual harassment training classes; no action was taken. ( Id. ¶ ¶ 41, 42.) In March 2005, Langford complained to Local 30's assistant shop steward, Bill Fallon, that she was subjected to harassment, verbal abuse, and had been treated in a disrespectful manner by a former white male apprentice and boiler operator, Brendan Benn. ( Id. ¶ 50.) Fallon directed her to write a complaint, and told her that he would handle it. ( Id.) On March 11, 2005, in response to her complaint to Fallon, Brendan McPartland, a business agent of Local 30, interrogated Langford, verbally berated her, and suggested that she could be disciplined for insubordination. ( Id. ¶ 51.) Langford then decided that it would be fruitless to complain further to Local 30 officials. ( Id. ¶ 52.)

III. Departure from Starrett

Langford's forty-two month apprenticeship period was scheduled to end in September 2007, ( Id. ¶ 56), but Langford experienced further difficulties leading up to the end of her apprenticeship. On April 24, 2006, she advised Salim Qureshi, Starrett's Director of Technical Services, that she was applying for an open operator position. ( Id. ¶ 53.) Qureshi, a native of India, pointed to his own skin and said, “It's all about color in this place.” ( Id.) He repeated that remark after a white male was hired. ( Id.) On May 17, 2006, Langford applied for a position as a boiler operator at Starrett, but was turned down on the grounds that she needed a refrigeration license. ( Id. ¶ 54.) Langford believes that the person hired for the position, a white male with less experience, did not have such a license. ( Id.) On April 30, 2007, Langford applied for a position as a maintenance mechanic. ( Id. ¶ 64.) Starrett administered a test for the position, and hired a white male with less experience than Langford. ( Id.)

Beginning in March 2006, Local 30 began to insist that Langford's apprenticeship had ended and that she had to report to the union hiring hall for reassignment. On March 30, 2006, December 13, 2006, and in March 2007, Howard Kelly, Director of Local 30's Apprenticeship Training Program, sent Langford letters advising her that she was no longer in the apprenticeship and directing her to report for reassignment. ( Id. ¶ 55.) On December 22, 2006, Langford went to the Local 30 hiring hall and informed Kelly that her apprenticeship did not end until September 2007; Kelly told her that she “must make room for others.” ( Id. ¶ 57.) Langford asked Kelly whether other white male apprentices who had started at the same time were being told similar things; Kelly had no answer, and these apprentices indeed had not been told similar things. ( Id.) Langford complained to John that Local 30 was trying to get her fired; John responded that “things happen to people of color,” but did nothing to address Langford's complaint. ( Id. ¶ 59.)

On March 8, 2007, Sullivan told Langford to report to the union hiring hall as her apprenticeship period had ended. ( Id. ¶ 60.) When Langford protested that she had six months remaining in her apprenticeship, Sullivan told her to go the union hall, and if she was hired by another employer, she “better not turn down that job or else [she was] going to have problems with the Union.” ( Id.) Sullivan repeated similar remarks to Langford on March 30, 2007 and May 1, 2007. ( Id. ¶¶ 61, 68.) Langford asked Sullivan for a reference letter on March 30, 2007; Sullivan declined, although he had given white males such letters. ( Id. ¶ 62.)

On April 12, 2007, Sullivan filed a grievance against Langford with Starrett asserting that her apprenticeship period had expired. ( Id. ¶ 65.) The next day, John Friel, director of Starrett's power plant,² wrote a memo to Qureshi and Vernon Douglas, director of Starrett's Human Resources Department, advising them that the term did not end until September 2007, but that Sullivan insisted on filing the grievance at the direction of union “higher-ups.” ( Id. ¶ 66.) Starrett rejected the...