In Allen v. New York State et al, 2:24-cv-02800 (JS) (JMW), 2024 WL 4654220 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 1, 2024), the court denied defendants’ motion to stay this action in which plaintiff asserts claims of hostile work environment, sexual harassment, and retaliation.
After summarizing the legal standard and the factors considered by courts – namely, “(1) whether the defendant has made a strong showing that the plaintiff’s claim is unmeritorious; (2) the breadth of discovery and the burden of responding to it; and (3) the risk of unfair prejudice to the party opposing the stay” – the court applied it to the facts:
First, regarding Plaintiff’s hostile work environment and sexual harassment claims under Title VII, Defendants assert that Plaintiff failed to allege that the OPWDD had knowledge of Sorg’s allegedly violative conduct until Plaintiff filed her initial complaint. (ECF No. 25 at p. 2.) Furthermore, according to Defendants, Plaintiff’s retaliation claim would likewise not survive a motion to dismiss considering Defendants had a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for taking the alleged adverse action against Plaintiff—the investigation into Plaintiff for her supposed employment outside of OPWDD. (Id. at p. 3.)
Conversely, Plaintiff contends that her sexual harassment claims set forth facts sufficient to prove ongoing sexual harassment, which Defendants subsequently ignored, well before Plaintiff’s initial complaint was filed. (ECF No. 26 at p. 2.) In addition, Plaintiff posits that the complaint filed against her one week after she filed her internal harassment complaint constitutes an adverse action. (Id. at p. 4.) Concededly, however, Plaintiff admits that she “does not have further information on that complaint because this case is in a pre-discovery stage.” (Id.)
At this stage in the proceedings, it appears to the Court that Defendants have not made a strong showing that Plaintiff’s Title VII claims are unmeritorious. With respect to her sexual harassment and hostile work environment claims, Plaintiff, on numerous occasions, alleges that she was subjected to unwanted sexual advances, questions, and comments by her supervisors. (See ECF No. 23 at ¶¶ 24, 32-33, 37-40.) Notably, Plaintiff highlights instances pre-dating July 19, 2021 where Sorg routinely commented about engaging in a romantic and sexual relationship with Plaintiff (id. at ¶ 40), spoke about Plaintiff’s breasts (id. at ¶ 19), grabbed her breasts (id. at ¶ 24), and texted sexually suggestive messages to Plaintiff individually and in group settings. (Id. at ¶¶ 30-31.) Such conduct continued throughout Plaintiff’s employment and even continued when she left for medical leave. (Id. at ¶¶ 64-70.) Indeed, as a result of this behavior, Plaintiff’s productivity was impacted as, for instance, she was effectively forced to leave work for the day after some of these sexual advancing comments were made. (Id. at ¶ 24.)
Furthermore, regarding Plaintiff’s retaliation claim, Plaintiff filed a discrimination complaint against Defendant Sorg alleging sexual harassment (id. at ¶ 71), which Defendants knew about (see id. at ¶¶ 72-77), and which subsequently resulted in an investigation into Plaintiff based on Defendants’ “retaliatory accusations”. (See id. at ¶¶ 84-89.) Though, as Plaintiff concedes, this claim needs more information, Defendants have still failed to put forth a strong showing that Plaintiff’s Title VII claims would be unmeritorious.
The court further declined to grant a stay of discovery, noting that plaintiff plans to request an additional amendment to her Amended Complaint in the event the Court finds that she has failed to meet the plausibility standard to survive a motion to dismiss and, therefore, “if a stay of discovery is granted, Plaintiff would blindly be realleging claims without the benefit of discovery to help bolster her causes of action.”