In Erazo v. IGH Restoration LLC, 23 Civ. 3982 (DEH), 2025 WL 2298712 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2025), concerning alleged sexual harassment, the court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Specifically, this decision discusses the issue of whether a defendant is considered an “employer” under the statute.
From the decision:
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, “[t]he term ‘employer’ means a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, and any agent of such a person.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b); see also Walters v. Metro. Educ. Enters., Inc., 519 U.S. 202, 212 (1997) (explaining that “the ultimate touchstone under § 2000e(b) is whether an employer has employment relationships with 15 or more individuals for each working day in 20 or more weeks during the year”). In evaluating the actual number of employees, “all one needs to know about a given employee for a given year is whether the employee started or ended employment during that year and, if so, when. He is counted as an employee for each working day after arrival and before departure.” Arculeo v. On-Site Sales & Mktg., LLC, 321 F.Supp.2d 604, 607 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).
In order to meet their burden on summary judgement, Defendants must show that there is no genuine dispute of material fact as to IGH’s categorization as an employer. Put differently, in order to grant summary judgment, this Court must evaluate the record and, while making reasonable inferences in favor of Erazo, conclude that no reasonable jury could find that IGH is an employer under Title VII.
The record does not support such a conclusion. In support of their motion, Defendants present the affidavit of IGH’s accountant stating that, according to payroll records, IGH “did not have 15 or more employees work for each workday in 20 or more calendar workweeks” at the relevant times. Ginez Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 54-2. But that statement is contradicted elsewhere in the record. For example, in response to Plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories, Defendants themselves stated that IGH maintained “[a]pproximately 30” employees from 2020 to 2021. Defs.’ Resp. & Obj. Pl.’s First Set of Interrogatories at 5, ECF No. 57-5. Further, in supporting their claim that they had fewer than 15 employees, Defendants do not present any records of cash payroll, see Ginez Decl, but Erazo states that she and other employees were paid in cash, Pl.’s SUF ¶ 1. Indeed, Erazo notes that although Defendants do not dispute that she was an employee, her name does not appear in their payroll records. Id. Erazo states in her affidavit that “[t]here were more than fifteen people waiting in line with [her] every pay day” to receive their cash payments. Erazo Aff. ¶ 13, ECF No. 57-4. These inconsistencies create a genuine dispute of material fact as to the number of employees IGH had at the relevant times.
The court concluded that defendants did not meet their initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, and in opposition, plaintiff identified evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer that IGH qualifies as an employer under Title VII.