In Bernard v. Care Design N.Y. et al, No. 20-cv-1527 (LJL), 2022 WL 4484556 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2022), the court, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s gender-based failure-to-promote claim asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
After reviewing, and rejecting, plaintiff’s other claims – including his claims of national origin (Belgian) discrimination and gender discrimination with respect to his termination – the court explained why plaintiff sufficiently alleged this particular claim:
Defendants, however, are incorrect that Plaintiff fails to allege that his failed promotion was the result of his gender. Plaintiff has alleged the following facts: that all of the promoted persons were women; that men working under Guarente were given poor performance reviews, more difficult cases, and less support generally; that there was a general pattern of men quitting or being fired; and that there is not a single male supervisor at the Bronx location.
Defendants also have not challenged that Plaintiff was qualified for the promotion; Plaintiff’s characterization of his qualifications relative to the other promoted candidates; or whether Plaintiff is “similarly situated” to the promoted women. Plaintiff has adequately plead that the promoted women are similarly situated in all material respects, which for a failure-to-promote claim requires comparing the qualifications of the plaintiff with those of the person promoted. Plaintiff has described himself as an employee in excellent standing, that he had been longer in the disability field than Director Batista and Senior Supervisor Guarente, and most importantly, that he had been around way longer than the three new Supervisors promoted. He also notes that none of the promoted Supervisors had ever been Senior Medicaid Service Coordinators. As for a prima facie case of comparability, the promoted women and Bernard are comparable because they were all Care Managers — the same role as Plaintiff at the time they were all considered for promotion.
[Cleaned up.]
The court thus concluded that, “liberally construed and taking the facts of the pleading to be true, the complaint plausibly alleges a Title VII failure-to-promote claim based on gender discrimination, in that plaintiff’s allegations show the minimal inference of discrimination in order to succeed at the first stage of the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting framework on a motion to dismiss.” [Cleaned up.]