Mayo-Coleman v. American Sugars Holdings Inc.

Filing 67

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: for 65 Report and Recommendations, 53 Motion to Dismiss, Motion to Strike, Motion for More Definite Statement, filed by American Sugars Holdings Inc., Bob Jandovitz. For the foregoing reasons, De fendants' partial motion to dismiss is GRANTED.Defendants' motion to strike is GRANTED with respect to allegations relating solely to Plaintiff's race and age discrimination claims, and DENIED with respect to all other allegations. Defendants' motion for a more definite statement is DENIED. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Crotty on 7/17/2015) (ama)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -X
ROSANNA MAYO-COLEMAN,

USDC SONY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC#: ____________
DAT E FILED: July 17,2015

14 Civ. 0079 (PAC) (KNF)

Plaintiff,
-against-

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

AMERICAN SUGAR HOLDING, INC., AND
ROBERT JANDOVITZ,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
HONORABLE PAUL A. CROTTY, United States District Judge:
On January 6, 20 14, Plaintiff Rosanna Mayo-Coleman, prose, commenced this action
alleging that her employer, American Sugar Holdings, 1 Inc., and its Human Resources Manager,
Robert Jandovitz, discriminated against her. Subsequently she retained counsel who filed an
Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint alleges ( 1) hostile work environment and "an
atmosphere of adverse employment actions" based on Plaintiffs "gender, sex, race, and age"; (2)
discrimination based on gender, sex, race, and age, in violation ofNYSHRL and NYCHRL; and
(3) retaliation and discrimination based on gender, sex, race, and age, "in violation of Federal
Law," NYSHRL, and NYCHRL.
Defendants move to partially dismiss the Amended Complaint, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(6), and to strike allegations fro m the Amended Complaint, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(f). Defendants also request a more definite statement of Plaintiffs claims, pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(e).
On March 2, 2015, Magistrate Judge Kevin Fox issued a Report and Recommendation
("R&R") that Defendants' partial motion to dismiss be granted, Defendants' motion to strike be
1

Defendant American Sugar Ho ldings, Inc. is identified incorrectly in the Amended Complaint as American Sugar
Holding, Inc.

1

On March 2, 2015, Magistrate Judge Kevin Fox issued a Report and Recommendation
("R&R") that Defendants' partial motion to dismiss be granted, Defendants' motion to strike be
granted in part, and denied in part, and Defendants' motion for a more definite statement be
denied.
I.

Background
Plaintiffbegan working at American Sugar Holdings in 1988. She alleges that, beginning

in 2008, her supervisor Tyrone Smith began to sexually harass her. 2 According to the Amended
Complaint, when Plaintiff rebuffed Smith's sexual advances, Smith retaliated by, inter alia,
denying Plaintiff overtime opportunities, assigning her additional responsibilities, and failing to
submit documentation so that Plaintiff could be paid on time. Plaintiff asserts that she
complained about Smith's behavior to her other supervisors and to members of American Sugar
Holdings' human resources department, including Defendant Jandovitz, but no one intervened.
In September 2012, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission ("EEOC") alleging sex discrimination. The EEOC complaint also referenced
alleged "sexual[] harassment and retaliat[ion]." The EEOC issued a notice of right to sue on
November 27, 2013.

II.

Report and Recommendation
A. Partial Motion to Dismiss
Magistrate Judge Fox recommends dismissal of Plaintiffs federal race and age

discrimination claims, because Plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies by
presenting those claims to the EEOC. (R&R at 8);see Francis v. City ofNew York, 235 F.3d
763, 768 (2d Cir. 2000). Plaintiffs race and age discrimination claims were not included in her

2

The facts alleged in the Amended Complaint are more fully set forth in Magistrate Judge Fox's Report and
Recommendation.

2

EEOC complaint. Nor are those claims "reasonably related" to the allegations presented to the
EEOC, because the "conduct complained of' does not "fall within the scope of the EEOC
investigation which can reasonably be expected to grow out of' Plaintiff's sex di scrimination
claim. (R&R at 8 (citing Fitzgerald v. Henderson, 251 F.3d 345, 359-60 (2d Cir. 2001))).
Plaintiff concedes that she "inadvertently included" the federal race and age claims in the
Amended Complaint, and instead "meant to limit the Federal Claim to sex and gender
discrimination." Opp. Mtn. 2.
Magistrate Judge Fox also recommends that this Court decline supplemental jurisdiction
over Plaintiff's NYSHRL and NYCHRL race and age discrimination claims. (R&R at 9); see
Crespo v. NY City Transit Auth. , 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2977, at *32-33 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 7,
2002).

B. Motion to Strike
Magistrate Judge Fox recommends striking as immaterial the allegations in the Amended
Complaint that relate solely to race and age discrimination. Since those claims have been
dismissed, evidence in support of those allegations would not be relevant. See Lipsky v.
Commonwealth United Corp., 551 F.2d 887,893 (2d Cir. 1976); Nycomed US Inc. v. Glenmark
Generics Ltd., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29267, at *28 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2010).
The R&R recommends denying the motion to strike allegations regarding: (1) Plaintiff's
early employment history; (2) acts that occurred from 2002 through 2006; and (3) an EEOC
complaint that Plaintiff filed in 1999. (R&R at 10). Defendants have not demonstrated, "on the
sterile field of the pleadings alone," that Plaintiff's employment history and prior EEOC
complaint "could not possibly be relevant" to her discrimination claims. See Lipsh.y, 551 F.2d at
893.

3

C. Motion for a More Definite Statement

Magistrate Judge Fox recommends denying Defendants' motion for a more definite
statement, because Plaintiffs Amended Complaint is not "so excessively vague and ambiguous
as to be unintelligible and as to prejudice the defendant seriously in attempting to answer it."
(R&R at 11 (quoting Boothe v. TRW Credit Data, 523 F. Supp. 631, 635 (S.D.N.Y. 1981))).
Defendants' request for specificity is "more appropriately clarified by discovery ... than by an
order for a more definite statement." (R&R at 12 (quoting Covington v. City ofNew York, 1999
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14574, at *28-29 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 1999))).

III.

Discussion
The Court may "accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may "adopt
those portions of the report to which no timely objection has been made, so long as there is no
clear error on the face of the record." Feehan v. Feehan, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14045, at *2
(S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2011). The parties had fourteen days after being served with the R&R to file
written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Their failure to do so results in waiver of any objections. See Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148-49 (1985). Accordingly, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error.
Finding none, the Court hereby adopts the R&R in full.

4

IV.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' partial motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

Defendants' motion to strike is GRANTED with respect to allegations relating solely to
Plaintiffs race and age discrimination claims, and DENIED with respect to all other allegations.
Defendants' motion for a more definite statement is DENIED.

Dated: New York, New York
July 17, 2015
SO ORDERED

PAULA. CROTTY
United States District Judge

5