Moraes v. White
Decision Date | 22 November 2021 |
Docket Number | 21 Civ. 4743 (PAE) |
Citation | 571 F.Supp.3d 77 |
Parties | Barbara MORAES, Plaintiff, v. April Mackenna WHITE and Alexander Wilke White, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Julia Lea Elmaleh-Sachs, Susan Karolena Crumiller, Crumiller P.C., Brooklyn, NY, Jonathan Adam Bernstein, Isaacs Bernstein, P.C., Yardley, PA, for Plaintiff.
Adam Swope Kaufmann, Lewis Baach Kaufmann Middlemiss PLLC, New York, NY, Jeffrey D. Robinson, Lewis Baach Kaufmann Middlemiss PLLC, Washington, DC, for Defendants.
Paul A. Engelmayer, United States District Judge This case involves claims of defamation and tortious interference with contract by a nanny, who alleges that her former employer defamed her as a stalker and harasser in social media posts and cost her an existing nanny job. Plaintiff Barbara Moraes ("Moraes") brings three claims of defamation, one of tortious interference of contract, one of intentional infliction of emotional distress, and three of violations of the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") against April Mackenna White ("Ms. White") and Alexander Wilke White ("Mr. White") (together, the "Whites"). These arise from Moraes’ employment as nanny to the Whites’ son, W., her termination from that post, and from the Whites’ alleged post-termination communications to others about Moraes.
The Whites now move under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for partial dismissal—of the claims for defamation, tortious interference of contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, but not those under the NYLL—for failure to state a claim. For the following reasons, the Court denies the Whites’ motion in its entirety.
In 2017, Moraes, a Brazilian immigrant, moved from Ohio to New York to pursue her education. FAC ¶ 12. Moraes found work as a nanny caring for young children in Chelsea, Manhattan. Id. Moraes received excellent references from the families for whom she worked in Chelsea as well as the family for whom she had worked in Ohio. Id.
In August 2019, the Whites hired Moraes as a nanny for their son, W. Id. ¶ 13. For nearly a year, the employment relationship was mutually satisfactory, Id. Moraes and W. were fond of each other, and Ms. White and Moraes developed a relationship of cordiality and confidence. Id.
In April 2020, Moraes was the victim of a violent attack unrelated to her employment. Id. ¶ 14. In the immediate aftermath, Moraes experienced extreme psychological distress. Id. After a three-day hospitalization, Moraes was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. Id.
According to the FAC, Ms. White thereafter was initially "kind" to Moraes, as she had been in the past. Id. ¶ 15. However, that changed in summer 2020. In July 2020, Moraes accompanied the Whites to their beach house in Long Island for several days. Id. ¶ 16. During the trip, Moraes confided in Ms. White that she had been struggling in the aftermath of the attack, including that she had been receiving treatment. Id. The FAC alleges that after receiving this information, Ms. White terminated Moraes’ employment immediately, and called for a car to take Moraes to her Queens apartment. Id. Moraes was not permitted to say goodbye to W. Id.
In a July 23, 2020 text message to Moraes, sent after her termination, Ms. White wrote regarding a recommendation, Kaufmann Decl., Ex. A.
On August 15, 2020, in an effort to seek closure, Moraes sent Ms. White a five-page letter about her behavior in the aftermath of her attack. Moraes stated:
Id. , Ex. B; FAC ¶ 17. Moraes never received a response to her letter. FAC ¶ 19. Moraes did not make any further attempt to contact the Whites. Id.
On August 20, 2020, Moraes’ friend, Ismenia, invited her and other nanny friends to meet at Chelsea Green for a picnic. Id. ¶ 20. This was convenient for Moraes, as she had planned to meet a friend for coffee in the neighborhood and to pick up a prescription at a pharmacy around the corner. Id.
While Moraes was chatting with friends at the picnic, W., accompanied by his new nanny, arrived at the park. Id. ¶ 21. According to the FAC, W. ran over to Moraes and hugged her. Id. Moraes sat with W. and his new nanny for a time on a park bench. Id.
That evening, Mr. White called Moraes. Id. ¶ 22. He told Moraes that "it's really inappropriate for you to be in our neighborhood, hanging around a park around the corner from our house, where we can only assume that you were there to try to see [W.]." Id.
According to the FAC, Moraes attempted to deny that she had been in the park to see W., but Mr. White spoke over her. Id. Mr. White also stated that Id. Moraes agreed, but expressed confusion as to what Mr. White expected her to do if she had other employment in the neighborhood. Id. The conversation transcript—which was tape-recorded by Mr. White—sets out this portion of their conversation:
Id. ¶ 23. Later that evening, Moraes and the Whites communicated through an intermediary, According to the FAC, Moraes agreed to change her pharmacy and minimize the time she spent in Flatiron and Chelsea, to avoid antagonizing the Whites. Id.
The FAC alleges that although Moraes was unsettled by the call, she assumed the issue had been resolved, as she had agreed not to have further communication with W. and to avoid the Whites as much as possible. Id. ¶ 24. At the time, this was not difficult for Moraes to agree to, because she had not secured new employment requiring her presence in a Manhattan neighborhood. Id.
On August 25, 2020, five days after the phone call, Moraes heard a loud and persistent banging on her apartment door. Id. ¶ 26. Moraes was frightened and surprised, as she assumed whoever was banging had to have snuck into the building. Id. The man at her door continued banging for approximately 20 minutes, until Moraes relented and opened the door. Id. ¶ 27. The man asked to enter the apartment; Moraes refused. Id. The man identified himself as Santiago Batista ("Batista"), a managing director of the firm Guidepost Solutions. Batista said that he was at Moraes’ apartment on behalf of the Whites. Id. ¶ 28.
According to the FAC, Batista told Moraes that the Whites were being "nice" because "they cared about you," that "you are a young person, you're an immigrant, you don't have to jeopardize your future here," and that "we hope you can continue to live and work here and there is no problem." Id. Batista stated that he was not at her apartment to threaten her or send her a message. Id. ¶ 29. Batista delivered to Moraes a letter from Lewis Baach Kaufmann Middlemiss, PLLC, Ms. White's law firm, dated August 25, 2020. The letter stated, in relevant part:
To continue reading
Request your trial- LeDeatte v. Horizon Media
-
McCollum v. Baldwin
...this single allegation does not meet the “extremely high bar” of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Cf. Moraes v. White, 571 F.Supp.3d 77, 104 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) (finding that it is “extreme and outrageous” defendant made multi-pronged campaign to harass plaintiff, including sending......
-
LoanStreet, Inc. v. Troia
...that are published to . . . [a] clearly defined group of private persons with an immediate relationship to the speaker.” Moraes, 571 F.Supp.3d at 99-100 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also id. at 100 (posts to Facebook groups containing 2,300 members and 6,000 members respectively ......