Tomassi v. Insignia Financial Group, Inc.

• Decision Date: 07 November 2005
• Docket Number: No. 04 CIV.2383 MBM.,04 CIV.2383 MBM.
• Citation: 398 F.Supp.2d 263
• Parties: Patricia McCarthy TOMASSI Plaintiff, v. INSIGNIA FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., Insignia Residential Group, Inc., and Metlife, Defendants
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

398 F.Supp.2d 263

Patricia McCarthy TOMASSI Plaintiff, v. INSIGNIA FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., Insignia Residential Group, Inc., and Metlife, Defendants

No. 04 CIV.2383 MBM.

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

November 7, 2005.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Christopher P. Kelly, Esq., Reppert Kelly & Satriale, Basking Ridge, NJ, for Plaintiff.

Douglas E. Rowes, Esq., Certilman Balin Adler & Hyman, East Meadow, for Defendants.

OPINION & ORDER

MUKASEY, District Judge.

Plaintiff Patricia McCarthy Tomassi ("Tomassi") sues Insignia Financial Group, Inc., and Insignia Residential Group, Inc. (collectively "Insignia"), as well as Metlife, Inc. ("MetLife"), alleging age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 623 (2000), age discrimination and harassment in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), N.Y. Exec. L. § 296(1)(a) (2005), age discrimination and harassment in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"), N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107 (2003), sex discrimination and harassment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), sex discrimination and harassment in violation of the NYSHRL, N.Y. Exec. L. § 296(1)(a), and sex discrimination and harassment in violation of the NYCHRL, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107. Defendants move for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c). For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted.

I.

The following facts, viewed in the light most favorable to Tomassi, are relevant to this opinion. In February 2000, MetLife hired Tomassi as the Supervisor of Resident Services for the Peter Cooper Village and Stuyvesant Town housing complexes ("PCV/ST"). (Compl.¶ 11) Tomassi was 60 years old when she was hired by MetLife. (Compl.¶ 7) As the Supervisor of Resident Services, Tomassi handled resident service requests and managed approximately 20 call center representatives. (Compl.¶ 11) In 2001, MetLife outsourced the management of the PCV/ST complex, which it owns, to Insignia. (Compl.¶ 12) On May 1, 2001, Tomassi became an employee of Insignia, continuing to perform the same services she had as a MetLife employee. (Compl.¶ 12) In May 2001, Insignia appointed Steve Stadmeyer as General Manager of PCV/ST. (Compl.¶ 13)

Tomassi alleges that from May 2001 until the time of her termination Stadmeyer made references to Tomassi's age, such as "Gee Pat, in your time is that what they did?" or "Gee, do you ever get tired of working ... do you think of retiring?" as well as stating that Tomassi and an elderly resident "spoke the same language" and she could "understand him." (Compl.¶ 24) Stadmeyer also asked Tomassi if she "could keep up with some of the work." (Tomassi Dep. at 29) Stadmeyer made such age-related comments to Tomassi "once a month, once every couple of months." (Tomassi Dep. at 50)

Tomassi also alleges Stadmeyer made sexually harassing comments in her presence, in particular he would make double entendres and comment on the way women in the office dressed. (Compl.¶ 25) Specifically, Tomassi remembers Stadmeyer commenting "oh, it's a short skirt today," "you look like you had a fun weekend," "you're going to have fun down in South Beach," and "that's a provocative dress you have on." (Tomassi Dep. at 32, 52-53) On one occasion, after sexual paraphernalia were found in one of the complex's apartments, Stadmeyer commented to Tomassi in a staff meeting, "Pat, did you go check out the items — did you find anything interesting?" (Compl.¶ 25) Tomassi never complained to Stadmeyer that she found his behavior offensive, nor did she complain to anyone else at Insignia or MetLife. (Tomassi Dep. at 32, 77)

In November 2001, Insignia began a renovation project at PCV/ST to attract young professionals to the complex and enacted a new policy encouraging more communication between management and residents. (Compl.¶ 15) In November 2001, Stadmeyer promoted Tomassi to Director of Resident Services, giving her responsibility for both resident services and community affairs matters. (Compl. ¶ 14; Stadmeyer Dep. at 69) In her new position, Tomassi often made efforts to reach out to the senior residents of PCV/ST; in her deposition she stated that she "was an advocate for seniors" and she "was trying to renovate the senior lounge." (Tomassi Dep. at 91) Between May 2001 and May 2003, Stadmeyer increased Tomassi's salary three times by a total of $14,600. (Plaintiff's 56.1 Statement ¶¶ 25, 28, 35)

In September 2002, Stadmeyer reorganized the Resident Services Group, instructing employees to cease reporting to Tomassi and instead to report to the Director of Operations. (Compl.¶ 18) In November 2002, Stadmeyer hired an administrative assistant for Tomassi. (Compl.¶ 19) In late 2002, Stadmeyer met with Tomassi and instructed her to prepare a written response to certain resident complaints, but after a month the complaints were not resolved and Stadmeyer reassigned the responsibility for handling those complaints to his administrative assistant. (Stadmeyer Aff. ¶ 21)

In early 2003, Tomassi's workload increased due to a gas explosion at PCV/ST in February and a construction project beginning in April. (Compl.¶ 20) During that same time, Stadmeyer received reports that Tomassi was not responding to tenant complaint letters promptly. (Stadmeyer Aff. ¶ 18) Tomassi admits that Stadmeyer spoke to her about his concern that letters were not being answered in a timely manner, but she explained "Mr. Stadmeyer wanted us to write a letter and say we were working on [the complaint]. It was too much ... so my way of handling it was calling the resident, which seemed to be fine." (Tomassi Depo. 73) In February 2003, Stadmeyer's administrative assistant took over Tomassi's responsibility for addressing written correspondence. (Stadmeyer Aff. ¶ 19). The task of overseeing the relocation of tenants affected by the February gas explosion also was removed from Tromassi after Stadmeyer determined she could not perform her duties in a timely manner. (Stadmeyer Aff. ¶ 20) Additionally, Tomassi violated Insignia's corporate policy for communicating with the media. (Stadmeyer Aff. ¶¶ 23-25)

On May 7, 2003, Stadmeyer told Tomassi that she was no longer needed at Insignia because he had hired someone with website experience to take over her responsibilities. (Compl.¶ 21) During this conversation, Stadmeyer told Tomassi he assumed she was "independently wealthy" and probably did not want to work full time. (Compl.¶ 21) He also stated that he knew she got along well with seniors and he figured she could do some work with them. (Tomassi Dep. at 39) Stadmeyer testified at his deposition that he falsely told Tomassi she was being fired because he needed someone with website experience; his real reason was his concern over her inability to perform her tasks efficiently. (Plaintiff's 56.1 Statement, ¶ 46) Tomassi's last day of employment was May 19, 2003. (Compl.¶ 21) Insignia hired 25-year-old Saskia Whitkam to handle Tomassi's prior responsibilities over tenant notices, the tenant newsletter, the PCV/ST website, and public relations matters. (Stadmeyer Aff. ¶ 28, 29)

When she was hired by Insignia in May 2001, Tomassi was provided the Insignia Employee Handbook and she signed an Employee Receipt and Acknowledgment for the handbook. (Stadmeyer Aff. ¶ 11; Def. Ex. C) Tomassi also attended a Sexual Harassment Awareness and Prevention Seminar provided by Insignia. (Def.Ex. E, F) Tomassi never brought any discriminatory or sexually harassing conduct to the attention of anyone at Insignia, despite her knowledge of Insignia's sexual harassment policy and procedures. (Stadmeyer Aff. ¶¶ 32, 33) According to Tomassi, she did not complain to Stadmeyer or any of his superiors about his behavior, because "I had a job I liked... so I felt that it didn't behoove me to make an official complaint ... I didn't want to appear not to be a team player." (Tomassi Depo. 77)

On July 31, 2003, Tomassi sent a letter to the Chairman of MetLife regarding her termination and experience as an Insignia employee; nowhere in the letter did she state that she was subjected to a hostile work environment or that she was terminated due to her age. (Defs.Ex. G) On or about September 26, 2003, Tomassi filed a Charge of Discrimination against Insignia and MetLife with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). (Compl.¶ 5) On December 29, 2003, Tomassi received a Notice of the Right to Sue from the EEOC. (Compl.¶ 6) Tomassi filed her complaint against Insignia and MetLife on March 25, 2004.

II.

Tomassi alleges that she was fired on account of her age and that she was subject to a hostile work environment as a result of sexually harassing verbal comments. Insignia and MetLife move for summary judgment on Tomassi's ADEA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL claims related to age discrimination on the ground that her employment was terminated due to her unsatisfactory job performance. Insignia and MetLife move for summary judgment on Tomassi's Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL claims related to gender discrimination on the ground that she did not comply with Insignia's sexual harassment complaint procedures. Metlife moves for summary judgment as to all claims against it on the ground that it was not Tomassi's employer at the time of any of the alleged discriminatory conduct.

III.

A. Age Discrimination Claims

Tomassi alleges that Insignia and MetLife should be held liable under the ADEA, the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL for terminating her employment due to her age. As New York courts require the same standard of proof for claims brought under the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL as for those brought under the ADEA, Tomassi's federal and state claims will be analyzed together. See Seltzer v. Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein, 356 F.Supp.2d 288, 296 (S.D.N.Y.2005); Cruz v. Coach Stores, Inc., 202 F.3d 560,...