La Peña v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 11 July 2013
• Docket Number: No. 12–CV–0766 (ADS)(ETB).,12–CV–0766 (ADS)(ETB).
• Citation: 953 F.Supp.2d 393
• Parties: Abdon DE LA PEÑA, Plaintiff, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and Sang Im, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

953 F.Supp.2d 393

Abdon DE LA PEÑA, Plaintiff,

v.METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and Sang Im, Defendants.

No. 12–CV–0766 (ADS)(ETB).

United States District Court,

E.D. New York.

July 11, 2013.

Wolin & Wolin, by Alan E. Wolin, Esq., of Counsel, Jericho, NY, for the Plaintiff.

Margolis & Tisman LLP, by Stephen E. Tisman, Esq., of Counsel, New York, NY, for the Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER

SPATT, District Judge.

On February 22, 2012, the Plaintiff Abdon De La Peña (“the Plaintiff”) commenced this employment discrimination action against the Defendants Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”), and two individual employees, Sang Im (“Im”), a Manager Director at MetLife, and Kathy Deas (“Deas”), an operations Manager at MetLife. In his original Complaint, the Plaintiff brought discrimination claims against MetLife, Im, and Deas subject to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 et seq., in which he alleged that the Defendants engaged in unlawful employment practices, discriminated against him, and subjected him to disparate treatment because of his race/color and/or national origin. The Plaintiff also brought a separate discrimination claim pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000–e et seq. (“Title VII”), against MetLife alleging that it subjected him to a hostile work environment due to his race/color and/or his national origin and also that he was actually or constructively discharged from his employment. Finally, the Plaintiff alleged that Defendant MetLife violated the Age Discrimination Act in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (“ADAE”), by denying him equal opportunities and subjecting him to a hostile work environment because of his age.

The Defendants moved to dismiss the original complaint pursuant to rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ.P.”) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint with leave to file an amended complaint. (Mem. of Decision and Order, at 44.)

The Plaintiff then served an amended complaint again asserting claims pursuant to Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 et seq. (“Section 1981”) against MetLife and Im. However, the Plaintiff no longer asserts any claim under the ADEA, nor does the Plaintiff pursue any claim against Deas. In particular, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants engaged in a discriminatory course of conduct against him based on his race/color and/or national origin. The Plaintiff also maintains that the Defendants created or subjected him to a hostile work environment due to his affiliation with a protected class. The Plaintiff further contends that his position of employment with MetLife ceased as a result of the Defendants' activities, which constituted an actual or constructive discharge.

Presently before the Court is the Defendant's motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.

I. BACKGROUND

The Amended Complaint now before the Court is substantially similar to the original Complaint and contains few changes, which will be addressed in more detail below. The following facts have been drawn from the original Complaint and have been restated in the Amended Compliant. All the alleged facts are viewed in a light most favorable to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is a sixty-year-old American citizen of Asian/Filipino descent. On June 13, 2005, the Plaintiff was employed by MetLife as a Financial Representative in a sales office located at 35–01 30th Avenue, Astoria, New York. In or about August 2008, Im, a Managing Director for MetLife, became the Plaintiff's supervisor. Im remained as the Plaintiff's advisor for the duration of his employment with MetLife.

Uka Gjonbalaj, who is not named as a party but is named in the Plaintiff's Complaint, was also employed by MetLife as a Sales Director and acted as the Plaintiff's direct supervisor. Gjonbalaj introduced the Plaintiff to Im in August of 2008, and advised the Plaintiff that Defendant Im would be his primary supervisor.

With regard to the complained of actions and lack of action, the Plaintiff alleges that he was qualified to work at all times during his period of employment and was not fired due to any work inefficiency. Rather, the Plaintiff alleges that during the course of his employment, MetLife, as well as its agents and employees, undertook an unlawful course of conduct by deliberately discriminating against him based on his race/color and/or his national origin. In response, the Defendants contend that any action or lack of action taken against the Plaintiff was unrelated to his race/color or national origin.

Initially, in this factual scenario, in or about September 2008, the Plaintiff received a written warning advising him that his production on the job fell below the MetLife standard and the Plaintiff was subsequently placed on an “Action Plan” under which the Plaintiff's job-related performance would be monitored.

On October 21, 2008, the Plaintiff was advised that his position at MetLife was discontinued and he was terminated. This occurred even though his revenue contribution to the company had exceeded the company's goals and standards laid out in the “Action Plan” previously given to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff also notes that in between the time that the Plaintiff was informed that he was going to be terminated and when he allegedly received the October termination letter, the Plaintiff discovered a list of “Top Ten Writing Agents” on which his name was placed, but which also had the word “terminated” printed adjacent to it. The Plaintiff allegedly brought this to the attention of his supervisors, asserting that it created a hostile and embarrassing work environment for him and was intentionally placed there to harm him. Gjonbalaj ultimately covered up the word “terminated” with a piece of tape.

Also, the Plaintiff alleges that, during the week of October 20, 2008, his access to the computer system used by, and provided to all MetLife sales representatives, was denied to him without justification. The Plaintiff alleges that MetLife had a duty to provide him with such access as it was necessary to carry out his job responsibilities. In doing so, the Plaintiff alleges that he could not transact business and access documents relating to his own employment. The Plaintiff cites an instance in which he was deprived access to a “Compensation Plan Acknowledgment,” which he was ultimately pressured to sign after receiving a physical copy and not having the requisite time to read and understand it.

On October 27, 2008, after receiving the termination letter, the Plaintiff and Gjonbalaj exchanged text messages regarding the end of the Plaintiff's employment. Gjonbalaj asked the Plaintiff to come in the following day to meet with Im. On October 28, 2008, the Plaintiff arrived at Im's office at 11:00 a.m., and waited until 2:00 p.m. for Im to arrive. During their meeting, the Plaintiff raised several complaints including: (1) how he had timely finished his work, but employees and agents of MetLife delayed processing his work; (2) the Defendants had treated him disrespectfully; (3) he had not received his promised bonus due to delays; and (4) that he should not have been fired after meeting and exceeding all the goals set for him. After finding that the Plaintiff had in fact met all the expectations set out for him, the Defendants reinstated his employment.

The Plaintiff remained employed at MetLife until November 18, 2008, at which time he alleges he was actually or constructively discharged. The Plaintiff also alleges that that he did not at any time abandon his employment. The Plaintiff specifically asserts that, on November 18, 2008, in a follow-up meeting, Im wrongfully accused the Plaintiff of being late to a meeting and, without provocation, hit the Plaintiff on the back causing the Plaintiff to be pushed forward into a desk. The Plaintiff described Im's behavior and actions in that meeting as “cantankerous and threatening.” At the same time, the Plaintiff alleges that Im told Plaintiff that “this is not the kind of business that you deserve to pursue, and we ask you to leave MetLife.” The Plaintiff alleges that upon hearing this, he turned over his laptop and computer files, which Im's secretary readily accepted, and he never returned to MetLife. The Plaintiff further alleges that he was the only Filipino in his office. The Plaintiff interprets this series of events as an actual or constructive discharge of his employment with MetLife based on his race/color and/or national origin.

In response, the Defendants alleged that the Plaintiff voluntarily abandoned his employment in November 2008 and was formally terminated effective March 4, 2009. (Tisman, Decl. Ex. C at 2.) The Defendants' proffered documentary evidence of continued communications between the Plaintiff and the Defendants after the Plaintiff's last day of work in November 2008. This evidence includes written correspondence affirming that the Plaintiff was still employed by MetLife and which also directed the Plaintiff to return to work. ( See id.) Plaintiff also submitted a written response acknowledging his absence from work and stating that he would not return unless Im was replaced. ( See id.) Thereafter, on March 3, 2009, following the Plaintiff's confirmation that he did not intend to return to work, MetLife terminated his employment for “job abandonment.” ( id.)

II. Procedural History

a. As to Plaintiff's EEOC and NYSDHR Claims

As a result of the foregoing, on July 17, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a Verified Complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights (“NYSDHR”) as well as a dual complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) pursuant to Executive Law, Article 15. (Defs.' Motion Ex. B.) In each complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants engaged in unlawful employment practices and...