In Meckeler v. Cornell University et al, 2024 WL 3535488 (N.D.N.Y. July 25, 2024), the court, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims of discrimination based on sexual orientation.
From the decision:
As Defendants argue, Plaintiff was able to outline many events in detail. For example, she laid out a verbatim conversation wherein her supervisor allegedly made comments about Plaintiff appearing “disengaged” and perhaps being “overwhelmed.” See Compl. at ¶¶ 22-23. Similarly, she described a performance evaluation that included the phrases “not open to feedback,” “aggressively resistant,” “overly defensive,” and “combative.” See id. at ¶ 27. Plaintiff also detailed how her “workload had … been a challenge prior to the pandemic,” that during the pandemic her job “became triaging the necessary work in the college [when she could not fill a vacant position on her team],” and that she was “overworked [and] consequently unable to participate in communal executive activities and functions that she would normally attend.” See id. at ¶ 19.
However, Plaintiff fails to allege any non-conclusory facts that provide “at least minimal support for the proposition that the employer was motivated by discriminatory intent.” Littlejohn v. City of New York, 795 F.3d 297, 311 (2d Cir. 2015). Rather, Plaintiff alleges in broad, conclusory fashion that there was “derogatory behavior” that either “referenced her sexual orientation” or “involved gay stereotypes.” See Compl. at ¶ 20. As Defendants argue, while Plaintiff was able to provide details, including quotes, about a variety of common workplace situations, Plaintiff failed to quote even one specific utterance about “sexual orientation” or “gay stereotypes.” Plaintiff also failed to provide details of such “derogatory behavior” that either “referenced her sexual orientation” or “gay stereotypes.” While Plaintiff contends that phrases such as “not open to feedback,” “aggressively resistant,” “overly defensive,” and “combative” are “words universally considered as derogatory and stereotypical language used to demean lesbians,” see Compl. at ¶ 27, the statements occurred in a negative performance evaluation. Plaintiff does not indicate any overt connection with Plaintiff’s sexual orientation. Plaintiff’s contention that these are “words universally considered as derogatory and stereotypical language used to demean lesbians,” without some connection to Plaintiff’s sexual orientation either in the evaluation process or in other specific interactions in the workplace (which are totally absent), is a broad conclusory allegation based upon Plaintiff’s subjective beliefs, but it is not sufficient to raise a plausible allegation of discrimination based on sexual orientation.
…
Here, Plaintiff fails to assert non-conclusory facts supporting even a minimal, plausible inference that her sexual orientation played any role in any adverse employment action Plaintiff experienced (i.e., exclusion from meetings, loss of supervisory authority, failure to hire a manager, postponement of the re-branding project, discharge). Accordingly, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s Title VII and NYSHRL gender discrimination claims.
The court did, however, dismiss these claims “without prejudice,” granting leave to amend to cure the deficiencies identified by the court.