Decision and Order

Decision and Order on Rule 12 (b)(6) and Rule 56 Motions

 Download PDF

63
Case 1:12-cv-01021-GTS-CFH Document 48 Filed 03/31/14 Page 63 of 67
The Court notes that, despite being advised of this lack-of-personal-involvement
argument (see, e.g., Dkt. No. 37, at 31-34, 52; Dkt. No. 38, at ¶¶ 33), Plaintiff has not adduced a
declaration establishing the personal involvement of Defendants Boswell, Jordan, Polukort, and
Scully in the decision to terminate her (despite the fact that this information was in her custody
or control). Rather, again, all the Court is left with is Plaintiff’s unverified and conclusory
allegation of that fact. (Dkt. No. 4, at ¶¶ 93, 123-127.)
After carefully considering the matter, the Court dismisses this claim, except for the
portion of this claim that is asserted against Defendants General Electric, Vavrasek and
O’Gorman arising from her termination.
7. Claim Against All Management Defendants Alleging Hostile Work
Environment Under 42 U.S.C. § 1981
After carefully considering the matter, the Court dismisses this claim for the reasons
stated in the Management Defendants’ memoranda of law. See, supra, Parts I.C.1. and I.C.3. of
this Decision and Order. To those reasons, the Court adds the analysis set forth above in Part
III.B.4. of this Decision and Order. Again, the Court notes that all supervisors whose actions
allegedly gave rise to this claim were named as Defendants in the Amended Complaint. (See
generally Dkt. No. 4.)
8. Claim Against All Management Defendants Alleging Sexual
Harassment Under N.Y. Exec. Law § 296
After carefully considering the matter, the Court dismisses this claim for the reasons
stated in the Management Defendants’ memoranda of law. See, supra, Parts I.C.1. and I.C.3. of
this Decision and Order. To those reasons, the Court adds the analysis set forth above in Part
III.B.1. of this Decision and Order. Again, the Court notes that all supervisors whose actions
allegedly gave rise to this claim were named as Defendants in the Amended Complaint. (See
generally Dkt. No. 4.)
64
Case 1:12-cv-01021-GTS-CFH Document 48 Filed 03/31/14 Page 64 of 67
9. Claim Against All Management Defendants Alleging Race
Discrimination Under N.Y. Exec. Law § 296
After carefully considering the matter, the Court dismisses this claim for the reasons
stated in the Management Defendants’ memoranda of law. See, supra, Parts I.C.1. and I.C.3. of
this Decision and Order. To those reasons, the Court adds the analysis set forth above in Part
III.B.5. of this Decision and Order.
10. Claim Against All Management Defendants Alleging Retaliation
Under N.Y. Exec. Law § 296
After carefully considering the matter, the Court dismisses this claim, except for the
portion of this claim that is asserted against Defendants General Electric, Vavrasek and
O’Gorman arising from her termination, for the reasons stated in the Management Defendants’
memoranda of law. See, supra, Parts I.C.1. and I.C.3. of this Decision and Order. To those
reasons, the Court adds the analysis set forth above in Part III.B.6. of this Decision and Order.
11. Claim Against All Management Defendants Alleging Hostile Work
Environment Under N.Y. Exec. Law § 296
After carefully considering the matter, the Court dismisses this claim for the reasons
stated in the Management Defendants’ memoranda of law. See, supra, Parts I.C.1. and I.C.3. of
this Decision and Order. To those reasons, the Court adds the analysis set forth above in Part
III.B.7. of this Decision and Order.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that the Hourly Defendants’ motion to dismiss and/or for summary
judgment (Dkt. No. 32) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as described above in Part
III.A. of this Decision and Order; and it is further
65
Case 1:12-cv-01021-GTS-CFH Document 48 Filed 03/31/14 Page 65 of 67
ORDERED that Management Defendants’ motion to dismiss and/or for summary
judgment (Dkt. No. 35) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as described above in Part
III.B. of this Decision and Order; and it is further
ORDERED that all claims asserted in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 4) are
DISMISSED except for the following six claims, which SURVIVE Defendants’ motions:
(1) Plaintiff’s hostile-work-environment claim against Defendant Lanoue under
42 U.S.C. § 1981;
(2) Plaintiff’s hostile-work-environment claim against Defendant Lanoue under
N.Y. Exec. Law § 296;
(3) Plaintiff’s sexual-harassment claim against Defendant Lanoue under N.Y.
Exec. Law § 296;
(4) the portion of Plaintiff’s retaliation claim against Defendant General Electric
under Title VII that arises from Plaintiff’s termination;
(5) the portion of Plaintiff’s retaliation claim against Defendants General Electric,
Vavrasek and O’Gorman under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 that arises from Plaintiff’s termination;
and
(6) the portion of Plaintiff’s retaliation claim against Defendants General Electric,
Vavrasek and O’Gorman under N.Y. Exec. Law § 296 that arises from Plaintiff’s
termination.
The clerk is directed to terminate all defendants, except for Defendants Lanoue, General
Electric, Vavrasek and O’Gorman; and it is further
66
Case 1:12-cv-01021-GTS-CFH Document 48 Filed 03/31/14 Page 66 of 67
ORDERED that the Hourly Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 32) is
denied only WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and it is further
ORDERED that the following portions of the Management Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment (Dkt. No. 35) are denied only WITHOUT PREJUDICE: (a) the portion
seeking the dismissal of Plaintiff’s retaliation claim against Defendant General Electric under
Title VII arising from Plaintiff’s termination; (b) the portion seeking the dismissal of Plaintiff’s
retaliation claim against Defendants General Electric, Vavrasek and O’Gorman under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1981 arising from Plaintiff’s termination; and (c) the portion seeking the dismissal of Plaintiff’s
retaliation claim against Defendants General Electric, Vavrasek and O’Gorman under N.Y. Exec.
Law § 296 arising from Plaintiff’s termination; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendants file an answer to the Plaintiff’s Complaint within 14 days of
the date of this Memorandum-Decision & Order pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 12(a)(4)(a) and
this case is referred back to Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel for the setting of pretrial
scheduling deadlines.
Dated: March 31, 2014
Syracuse, New York
67
Case 1:12-cv-01021-GTS-CFH Document 48 Filed 03/31/14 Page 67 of 67

Download PDF
Email
Report

Note close

Firefox recommends the PDF Plugin for Mac OS X for viewing PDF documents in your browser.

We can also show you Legal Updates using the Google Viewer; however, you will need to be logged into Google Docs to view them.

Please choose one of the above to proceed!

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.