In M.H. v. Starbucks Coffee Company, 2024 WL 3089931 (S.D.N.Y. June 20, 2024), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s hostile work environment sexual harassment claim asserted under the New York State Human Rights Law.
In sum, plaintiff, a Starbucks barista, alleged that she was raped by Justin Mariani, a shift supervisor. In 2023, The court initially granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, but allowed plaintiff leave to amend her pleadings.[1]M.H. v. Starbucks Coffee Co., No. 22 Civ. 10507, 2023 WL 5211023 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2023). Plaintiff did so, and defendant filed a second motion to dismiss.
Initially, the court held that plaintiff stated an actionable hostile work environment claim:
Accepting the truth of Plaintiff’s allegations, on one occasion, a female coworker overheard Mariani “saying sexually inappropriate things to” Plaintiff, and was compelled to intervene. Id. ¶¶ 67-68. A factfinder could reasonably conclude that Mariani’s sexually harassing comments, including those made in front of Plaintiff’s co-worker(s), reflect a discriminatory motive. See Mitura, 2024 WL 232323, at *5 (disparaging comments may reflect a discriminatory motive). A finding of discriminatory intent is further supported by Plaintiff’s allegations that Mariani had sexually harassed other female baristas on various occasions. See SAC ¶¶ 28-29, 35, 37, 40, 46, 48, 54, 61. Taken together, these allegations plausibly state a claim of hostile work environment under the NYSHRL’s more lenient, post-amendment standard. See, e.g., Sanderson v. Leg Apparel LLC, No. 19 Civ. 8423, 2020 WL 7342742, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2020) (holding that a supervisor’s three comments about the plaintiff’s perceived sexual orientation made to embarrass him and “diminish [his] success” were enough to plausibly state a NYCHRL hostile work environment claim); Carter v. Verizon, No. 13 Civ. 7579, 2015 WL 247344, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 20, 2015) (finding a supervisor’s repeated touching of the plaintiff’s shoulders was “potentially gender-charged” and sufficient to state a hostile work environment claim under the NYCHRL).
Next, the court turned to the issue of whether Starbucks may be held liable under the NYS Human Rights Law.
In order to hold Starbucks liable under the statute, explained the court, a plaintiff must demonstrate that it “became a party to it by encouraging, condoning, or approving it.”
Here, plaintiff asserts that Starbucks’ “inaction in response to Mariani’s serial harassment is akin to Starbucks ‘encouraging, condoning, or approving’ of Mariani’s behavior.”
In its initial order dismissing the case, the court noted that “after learning about the allegations against Mariani, Starbucks gave him a final written warning that was signed on April 2, 2021” and thus concluded that no reasonable jury could find that Starbucks approved or encouraged Mariani’s behavior, through calculated inaction or otherwise.
However, in her amended pleadings, plaintiff alleges, in sum, that Starbucks “waited too long to investigate Mariani; then, when it did investigate him, did not do so adequately; and, finally, even after its investigation, did not impose meaningful consequences on him for his conduct.”
Applying the law to these new allegations, the court explained:
Accepting the truth of Plaintiff’s allegations, shortly after he was hired in August 2020, Mariani began sexually harassing other female coworkers. Id. ¶ 28. As early as in November 2020, a female Starbucks barista filed a complaint against Mariani, but Starbucks conducted “no investigation nor discipline” in response. See id. ¶¶ 29-31. It was not until three months later, in February 2021, after yet another complaint about Mariani’s behavior, that Starbucks opened an investigation into his misconduct. Id. ¶¶ 35-36. During the investigation, Starbucks spoke to some “girls[ ] who reported sexual misconduct” by Mariani, but did not speak with other female co-workers who “were also sexual[ly] harassed by [Mariani].” Id. ¶¶ 40, 47-48. Plaintiff alleges that Mariani was “emboldened” by Starbucks’ “incomplete” response and that Mariani continued his harassing behavior throughout the investigation. Id. ¶¶ 44, 49. On March 31, 2021, Starbucks issued a “Corrective Action” against Mariani for violating Starbucks’ anti-harassment standards. Id. ¶ 50. The Action noted that “[i]t was alleged that” Mariani “engaged in unwanted touching” and made “inappropriate sexual comments, jokes, and innuendo in the workplace.” Id. Two days later, on April 2, 2021, Mariani signed a written warning from Starbucks. Id. ¶ 52. Plaintiff alleges that this was the only form of punishment Mariani received. See id. ¶¶ 57-58. Several weeks later, and two days after Mariani was arrested for raping Plaintiff, Starbucks finally terminated Mariani’s employment, on April 23, 2021. Id. ¶¶ 71, 73.3
The Court concludes based on these new allegations that Plaintiff has adequately alleged that Starbucks “in effect, condoned [Mariani’s] sexual harassment by allegedly conducting its investigation in an ineffective and inadequate manner.” Bennett v. Progressive Corp., 225 F. Supp. 2d 190, 211 (N.D.N.Y. 2002); cf. E.E.O.C. v. Suffolk Laundry Servs., Inc., 48 F. Supp. 3d 497, 522 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (concluding that there was “ample evidence in the record from which a jury could conclude that the [Defendants’] actions, viewed as a whole, amounted to a condonation or tacit acceptance of [the perpetrator’s] conduct,” even where Defendants took some limited action against the perpetrator). Plaintiff’s theory of liability “is far from airtight. But that closeness is exactly what makes this question a fact issue not susceptible to resolution at this early stage of litigation.”
Based on this, the court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss this count.
It did, however, grant defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s negligent supervision, hiring, and/or retention claim, since plaintiff did not allege a necessary element of such a claim, namely, “that her assault occurred on Starbucks’ premises or with its property or resources.”
| ↩1 | M.H. v. Starbucks Coffee Co., No. 22 Civ. 10507, 2023 WL 5211023 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2023). |
|---|