Magistrate Judge's Ruling on Motion to Intervene Re Vamco

8/12/2019 Magistrate Judge's Ruling on Motion to Intervene Re Vamco

1/19

UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTSOUTHERN DI STRI CT OF NEW YORK- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - :EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNI TY : 13 Ci v. 6088 ( J PO) ( J CF)COMMI SSI ON, :

: REPORT ANDPl ai nt i f f , : RECOMMENDATI ON:

- agai nst - ::

VAMCO SHEET METALS, I NC. , ::

Def endant . :- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - :TO THE HONORABLE J . PAUL OETKEN, U. S. D. J . :

On August 29, 2013, t he Equal Empl oyment Oppor t uni t y

Commi ss i on ( EEOC) br ought sui t agai nst Vamco Sheet Metal s, I nc.

( Vamco) , al l egi ng unl awf ul empl oyment di scr i mi nat i on based on sex

i n vi ol at i on of Ti t l e VI I of t he Ci vi l Ri ght s Act of 1964 and Ti t l e

I of t he Ci vi l Ri ght s Act of 1991. Pl ai nt i f f - I nt er venor s Kesha

Watki ns, Anna Qui t or i ano, Ni l sa Lopez, and Mel ani e DeMi cco now

r equest l eave t o i nt er vene, br i ngi ng cl ai ms under Ti t l e VI I , t he

New Yor k Human Ri ght s Law, N. Y. Exec. Law 296 ( NYHRL) , and t he

New Yor k Ci t y Human Ri ght s Law, Admi ni st r at i on Code of t he Ci t y of

New Yor k 8- 101 et seq. ( NYCHRL) . Ms. DeMi cco al so br i ngs

cl ai ms pur suant t o the Fai r Labor St andar ds Act of 1938, 29 U. S. C.

207( r ) ( 1) ( FLSA) , and New Yor k St at e Labor Law, Ar t . 7 206- c

( NYLL) . For t he r easons t hat f ol l ow, t he mot i on shoul d be

gr ant ed i n par t and deni ed i n par t .

Backgr ound

The def endant i s a New York cor por at i on t hat provi des sheet

Case 1:13-cv-06088-JPO-JCF Document 33 Filed 03/04/14 Page 1 of 19


2/19

met al f abr i cat i on and i nst al l at i on ser vi ces on const r uct i on

pr oj ect s. ( Compl ai nt ( Compl . ) , 4, 7) . Bet ween J ul y 2008 and

Apr i l 2011, t he def endant subcont r act ed f or a const r uct i on pr oj ect

at t he J ohn J ay Col l ege of Cr i mi nal J ust i ce i n New Yor k Ci t y.

( Compl . , 8) . Due t o t he l ocat i on of t he pr oj ect , Vamco was

r equi r ed t o hi r e empl oyees f r om Local 28 of t he Sheet Met al

Wor ker s I nt er nat i onal Uni on ( Local 28) . ( Compl . , 9) . The

pr oj ect was al so subj ect t o f eder al r equi r ement s mandat i ng t hat 6. 9

percent of t he t otal const r uct i on work hour s be perf ormed by women.

( Compl . , 15; Pr oposed Compl ai nt ( Prop. Compl . ) , 16) .

Despi t e t hi s r equi r ement , Vamco empl oyed seven t o t en women

f or t he dur at i on of t he pr oj ect ( Compl . , 14; Pr op. Compl . , 17) ,

as compar ed t o al most 200 men. ( Pr op. Compl . , 17) . The EEOC and

t he pl ai nt i f f - i nt er venor s al so al l ege t hat mal e Vamco empl oyees

enj oyed l onger t enur e t han f emal e empl oyees, i n part t hr ough

del i ber at e mani pul at i on of t he Local 28 r ef er r al syst em. ( Compl . ,

14, 20- 21, 39; Prop. Compl . , 18) . Local 28 f i l l s empl oyment

r equest s by mai nt ai ni ng a l i st r anki ng i t s members by empl oyment

st atus; t hose who have been unempl oyed t he l ongest are put at t he

t op of t he l i st and r ef er r ed f i r st i n r esponse to empl oyment

r equest s. ( Compl . , 10) . The f i r st t i me a member accept s a j ob

t hat l ast s f i ve days or l ess, hi s or her name r et ur ns t o i t s

or i gi nal posi t i on on t he l i st , r at her t han bei ng pl aced at t he

2



3/19

bot t om. ( Compl . , 11) . Dur i ng t he J ohn J ay pr oj ect , t he l i st

cont ai ned hundr eds of names, wi t h a wai t i ng per i od of appr oxi mat el y

one year f or t hose on t he bot t om of t he l i st . ( Compl . , 12) . At

l east t wi ce, Vamco di smi ssed f emal e empl oyees and t hen r equest ed

new r ef er r al s f r om Local 28 i n an at t empt t o ci r cumvent t he

r ef er r al system. ( Compl . 20- 21, 38- 39) .

Four women who wer e t er mi nat ed by Vamco f i l ed char ges of

unl awf ul gender di scr i mi nat i on wi t h t he EEOC. ( Compl . , 6) .

Af t er t he EEOC conduct ed an i nvest i gat i on i nt o t hei r cl ai ms, i t

i ssued a combi ned determi nat i on f i ndi ng t hat Vamco subj ect ed t hose

f our f emal e empl oyees and a cl ass of f emal e sheet metal worker s t o

di spar at e t r eat ment i n t he t er ms and condi t i ons of t hei r

empl oyment , unj ust i f i ed negat i ve eval uat i ons as compared wi t h mal e

cowor ker s, and l ayof f s when mal e wor ker s wer e ret ai ned i n

vi ol at i on of Ti t l e VI I . ( Pr op. Compl . , 21) . The EEOC f i l ed sui t

agai nst Vamco on August 29, 2013. The pl ai nt i f f - i nt er venor s - - t he

f our women on whose behal f t he EEOC f i l ed sui t - - now seek t o

i nt er vene and br i ng addi t i onal char ges agai nst Vamco.

A. Pr oposed Compl ai nt

Al t hough t he under l yi ng al l egat i ons di f f er i n t hat t hey

descri be each pl ai nt i f f - i nt er venor s i ndi vi dual exper i ence wi t h

Vamco, t here are common t hr eads t o t he cl ai ms. Al l f our women

al l ege t hat t hey were exper i enced metal workers who were assi gned

3



4/19

l ow l evel wor k, i n cont r ast t o t hei r mal e cowor ker s. ( Pr op.

Compl . , 22, 27, 38, 42, 51, 56, 57, 64, 71) . They di d not

r ecei ve t he same t r eat ment as t hei r mal e cowor ker s wi t h

perf ormance or at t endance pr obl ems ( Prop. Compl . , 33, 34, 47) ,

and were of t en subj ect ed t o host i l e t r eat ment by management ( Prop.

Compl . , 26, 44, 46, 58, 69, 70) . Two of t he pl ai nt i f f -

i nt er venor s - - Ms. Qui t or i ano and Ms. Lopez - - wer e cal l ed ol d

l adi es and ol d hags and t ol d t hat women were l ow- pr oduct i on.

( Compl . , 32; Pr op. Compl . , 44, 70) . Af t er t er mi nat i ng t hr ee

of t he pl ai nt i f f - i nt er venor s, ei t her f or l ack of wor k or wi t hout

pr ovi di ng an expl anat i on, Vamco cont i nued t o hi r e mal e empl oyees.

( Prop. Compl . , 30, 48, 76) . Onl y t hr ee women hi r ed f r om Local

28 wer e empl oyed f or l onger t han f i ve mont hs, whi l e t he maj or i t y

wer e t er mi nat ed wi t hi n weeks or days. ( Prop. Compl . , 18) .

One i nt er venor - pl ai nt i f f , Mel ani e DeMi cco, was br east f eedi ng

her el even- week- ol d son at t he t i me she was hi r ed by Vamco. ( Prop.

Compl . , 72) . I n addi t i on t o br i ngi ng cl ai ms of unl awf ul gender

di scr i mi nat i on under Ti t l e VI I , Ms. DeMi cco al l eges t hat Vamco

vi ol at ed 207( r ) of t he FLSA and i t s New Yor k anal og, NYLL 206- c,

by f ai l i ng t o pr ovi de her wi t h r easonabl e br eaks and l ocat i ons t o

expr ess br east mi l k. ( Prop. Compl . , 100, 106) . Vamco al l owed

Ms. DeMi cco a t en mi nut e morni ng br eak t o pump mi l k, i n addi t i on t o

her l unch br eak. ( Prop. Compl . , 73) . However , Ms. DeMi cco

4



5/19

cont ends she exper i enced harassment f or t aki ng t hese br eaks.

( Prop. Compl . , 73) . And, al t hough she r equest ed an appr opr i at e

l ocat i on t o expr ess mi l k, Vamco di d not pr ovi de her wi t h a

desi gnat ed ar ea. ( Pr op. Compl . , 73- 74) . As a r esul t , she

expr essed mi l k i n i mpr ovi sed l ocat i ons t hat r equi r ed a cowor ker

t o act as l ook- out , i ncl udi ng a cl oset , a make- shi f t bat hr oom, and

an ai r condi t i oni ng uni t . ( Pr op. Compl . , 74- 75) . Ms. DeMi cco

al l eges t hat t hi s si t uat i on was so st r essf ul t hat she st opped

br east f eedi ng her chi l d ear l i er t han she had pl anned and cont i nues

t o suf f er emot i onal di st r ess. ( Pr op. Compl . , 75, 102)

Di scussi on

A. I nt er vent i on

Rul e 24( a) of t he Feder al Rul es of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e pr ovi des

t hat [ o] n t i mel y mot i on, t he cour t must per mi t anyone t o i nt er vene

who . . . i s gi ven an uncondi t i onal r i ght t o i nt er vene by f eder al

st at ut e. Fed. R. Ci v. P. 24( a) ( 1) . I n consi der i ng a mot i on t o

i nt er vene, t he cour t must accept as t r ue non- concl usory

al l egat i ons of t he mot i on. Uni t ed Par cel Ser vi ces of Amer i ca,

I nc. v. Net , I nc. , 225 F. R. D. 416, 421 ( E. D. N. Y. 2005) .

Ti t l e VI I grant s t he r i ght t o i nter vene t o any i ndi vi dual

whose i ni t i al EEOC compl ai nt t r i gger s an EEOC enf or cement act i on.

42 U. S. C. 2000e5( f ) ( 1) ; EEOC v. Mavi s Di scount Ti r e, No. 12 Ci v.

0741, 2013 WL 5434155, at *3 ( S. D. N. Y. Sept . 30, 2013) . The

5



6/19

def endant does not cont est t he pl ai nt i f f - i nt er venor s r i ght t o

i nt er vene and asser t Ti t l e VI I cl ai ms or t o br i ng associ at ed cl ai ms

under NYHRL. ( Memorandumof Law i n Par t i al Opposi t i on t o Mot i on t o

I nt er vene ( Def . Memo. ) at 3) . As out l i ned above, t he pl ai nt i f f -

i nt er venor s al l f i l ed char ges wi t h t he EEOC r el at ed t o t hei r

empl oyment wi t h Vamco, and were i ssued a j oi nt determi nat i on bef ore

t he EEOC f i l ed sui t on t hei r behal f . Fur t her , t he i nt er vent i on i s

t i mel y. The pl ai nt i f f - i nt er venor s f i l ed t hei r mot i on f our mont hs

af t er t he compl ai nt was f i l ed, l ess t han t wo weeks af t er t he

def endant f i l ed an amended answer, and bef ore the st art of

di scover y. See Mavi s Di scount Ti r e, 2013 WL 5434155, at *4; EEOC

v. Mer r i l l Lynch & Co. , I nc. , No. 07 Ci v. 6017, 2007 WL 2846361, at

*1 ( S. D. N. Y. Sept . 26, 2007) ( f i ndi ng i nt er vent i on t i mel y wher e

mot i on was f i l ed t wo mont hs af t er compl ai nt ) . Accor di ngl y, t he

pl ai nt i f f - i nt er venor s mot i on t o i nt er vene shoul d be gr ant ed as t o

t hei r Ti t l e VI I and NYHRL cl ai ms.

B. Suppl ement al J ur i sdi ct i on

Vamco ar gues, nonethel ess, t hat t he Cour t shoul d decl i ne t o

exer ci se suppl ement al j ur i sdi ct i on over t he pl ai nt i f f - i nt er venor s

Ci t y l aw cl ai ms. When a cour t has or i gi nal j ur i sdi ct i on under 28

U. S. C. 1367, i t al so shal l have suppl ement al j ur i sdi ct i on over

al l ot her cl ai ms t hat ar e so r el at ed t o cl ai ms i n t he act i on wi t hi n

such or i gi nal j ur i sdi cti on t hat t hey f or mpar t of t he same case or

6



7/19

cont r over sy under Ar t i cl e I I I of t he Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on.

28 U. S. C. 1367( a) . Cl ai ms ar e par t of t he same case or

cont r oversy when t hey ar i se out of a common nucl eus of operat i ve

f act. Br i ar pat ch Lt d. , v. Phoeni x Pi ctur es, I nc. , 373 F. 3d 296,

308 ( 2d Ci r . 2004) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ; Tr egl i a v.

Town of Manl i us, 313 F. 3d 713, 723 ( 2d Ci r . 2002) ( exer ci se of

suppl ement al j ur i sdi ct i on pr oper wher e st at e and f eder al cl ai ms

der i ve f r om appr oxi mat el y the same set of event s) . Typi cal l y,

suppl ement al j ur i sdi ct i on i s appr opr i at e f or cl ai ms dur i ng t he

empl oyment r el at i onshi p because those cl ai ms ar i se f r om t he same

under l yi ng f act ual basi s. Ri ver a v. Ndol a Phar macy Cor p. , 497 F.

Supp. 2d 381, 393 ( E. D. N. Y. 2007) .

Once t he cour t has f ound a common nucl eus, i t may onl y decl i ne

suppl ement al j ur i sdi ct i on over r el at ed cl ai ms i f :

( 1) t he cl ai m r ai ses a novel or compl ex i ssue of St at el aw, ( 2) t he cl ai m subst ant i al l y pr edomi nat es over t hecl ai m or cl ai ms over whi ch t he di st r i ct cour t hasor i gi nal j ur i sdi ct i on, ( 3) t he di s tr i ct court hasdi smi ssed al l cl ai ms over whi ch i t has or i gi nalj ur i sdi ct i on, or ( 4) i n except i onal ci r cumst ances, t her ear e ot her compel l i ng r easons f or decl i ni ng j ur i sdi ct i on.

28 U. S. C. 1367( c) ; see al so Shahr i ar v. Smi t h & Wol l ensky

Rest aur ant Gr oup, I nc. , 659 F. 3d 234, 245 ( 2d Ci r . 2011) ; Vi ncent

v. Money St ore, No. 03 Ci v. 2876, 2011 WL 5977812, at *2 ( S. D. N. Y.

Nov. 29, 2011) .

Si mpl y i dent i f yi ng an appl i cabl e except i on does not r equi r e a

7



8/19

cour t t o decl i ne j ur i sdi ct i on, however . See Val enci a ex r el .

Franco v. Lee, 316 F. 3d 299, 305 ( 2d Ci r . 2003) ( not i ng t hat

1367( c) i s per mi ssi ve r at her t han mandat or y) ; see al so Ri ver a,

497 F. Supp. 2d at 393 ( descr i bi ng exerci se of suppl ement al

j ur i sdi ct i on as t he pref er r ed cour se of act i on unl ess t her e i s a

compel l i ng r eason not t o) . I f an except i on under 1367 appl i es,

t he cour t t hen consi der s whet her r et ai ni ng or decl i ni ng

j ur i sdi ct i on over t he suppl emental cl ai m best sat i sf i es t he

pr i nci pl es of economy, conveni ence, f ai r ness, and comi t y.

Met r o Foundat i on Cont r act or s, I nc. v. Ar ch I nsur ance Co. , 498 F.

App x 98, 103 (2d Ci r . 2012) ( quot i ng I t ar - Tass Russi an News Agency

v. Russi an Kur i er , I nc. , 140 F. 3d 442, 446 ( 2d Ci r . 1998) ) ; see

al so J ones v. For d Mot or Cr edi t Co. , 358 F. 3d 205, 214 ( 2d Ci r .

2004) ; I n r e Met hyl Ter t i ar y But yl Et her ( MTBE) Pr oduct s

Li abi l i t y Li t i gat i on, 613 F. Supp. 2d 437, 442 ( S. D. N. Y. 2009) .

Exer ci si ng suppl ement al j ur i sdi ct i on over di scr i mi nat i on cl ai ms i n

par t i cul ar , whi l e not aut omat i c, i s a f avor ed and nor mal cour se of

act i on. Pr omi sel v. Fi r st Amer i can Ar t i f i ci al Fl ower s, 943 F. 2d

251, 254 ( 2d Ci r . 1991) ; see al so Ri ver a, 497 F. Supp. 2d at 387.

Whet her suppl ement al j ur i sdi ct i on shoul d be exer ci sed r emai ns an

open quest i on t hat may be r ai sed at any st age i n t he l i t i gat i on.

See I t arTass Russi an News Agency, 140 F. 3d at 445; Chenensky v.

New York Li f e I nsurance Co. , 942 F. Supp. 2d 388, 391 ( S. D. N. Y.

8



9/19

2013) .

1. NYCHRL Cl ai ms

Whi l e i t i s wel l - est abl i shed i n t he Second Ci r cui t t hat cl ai ms

br ought under NYHRL ar e anal yt i cal l y i dent i cal t o cl ai ms br ought

under Ti t l e VI I , Mavi s Di scount Ti r e, 2013 WL 5434155, at *5

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) , t he same i s not t r ue f or NYCHRL

cl ai ms. Mi hal i k v. Cr edi t Agr i col e Cheuvr eux Nor t h Amer i ca, I nc. ,

715 F. 3d 102, 108- 09 ( 2d Ci r . 2013) ( not i ng t hat cour t s must

anal yze NYCHRL cl ai ms separatel y and i ndependent l y f r omany f ederal

and st ate l aw cl ai ms) . NYCHRL cr eat es a l ower t hr eshol d f or

act i onabl e conduct and must be const r ued br oadl y i n f avor of

di scr i mi nat i on pl ai nt i f f s, cr eat i ng a si t uat i on wher e a def endant

mi ght be l i abl e under NYCHRL but not under st ate or f ederal

st at ut es. I d. at 109- 13; see al so Ander son v. Davi s Pol k &

War dwel l , 850 F. Supp. 2d 392, 403- 404 ( S. D. N. Y. 2012) . Thi s does

not , however , i nvar i abl y pr ohi bi t such cl ai ms f r om bei ng t r i ed

concur r ent l y. See, e. g. , EEOC v. Bl oomber g LP, __ F. Supp. 2d __,

__, 2013 WL 4799161, at *3- 10 ( S. D. N. Y. 2013) ( eval uat i ng Ti t l e

VI I , NYHRL, and NYCHRL cl ai ms r el at ed t o empl oyment

di scr i mi nat i on) ; Sampson v. Ci t y of New Yor k, No. 07 Ci v. 2836,

2009 WL 3364218, at *7 ( S. D. N. Y. Oct . 19, 2009) ( f i ndi ng

suppl ement al j ur i sdi ct i on appr opr i at e wher e pl ai nt i f f s st at e and

l ocal cl ai ms der i ved f r omsame oper at i ve f act s as f eder al cl ai ms) ;

9



10/19

I nt er nat i onal Heal t hcar e Exchange, I nc. v. Gl obal Heal t hcar e

Exchange, LLC, 470 F. Supp. 2d 345, 357- 58 (S. D. N. Y. 2007)

( r et ai ni ng j ur i sdi ct i on over st at e and l ocal l aw cl ai ms t o avoi d

t he pot ent i al f or dupl i cat i ve l i t i gat i on over t he same conduct ) ;

but see EEOC v. Rekrem, I nc. , 199 F. R. D. 526, 529 ( S. D. N. Y. 2001)

( decl i ni ng t o exer ci se suppl ement al j ur i sdi ct i on over st at e and

ci t y human r i ght s l aw cl ai ms where cl ai ms woul d undul y compl i cate

t he pr oceedi ngs and f ocus t he t r i al away f r om t he part i es Ti t l e

VI I cl ai ms) .

The cl ai ms t he Pl ai nt i f f - I nter venor s seek t o asser t under

NYCHRL ar i se out of t he same conduct as t hei r Ti t l e VI I and NYHRL

cl ai ms. Vamco ar gues, nonet hel ess, t hat r equi r i ng a j ur y t o

eval uat e t he same conduct under t wo di f f er ent l egal st andar ds

pr esent s t oo di f f i cul t a t ask f or t he j ur or s. ( Def . Memo. at 4- 5) .

Cour t s may decl i ne suppl ement al j ur i sdi ct i on wher e t he l i kel i hood

of j ur y conf usi on i n t r eat i ng di ver gent l egal t heor i es of r el i ef [ ]

woul d j ust i f y separ at i ng st at e and f eder al cl ai ms f or t r i al .

Uni t ed Mi ne Worker s of Amer i ca v. Gi bbs, 383 U. S. 715, 726 ( 1966) ;

see al so SST Gl obal Technol ogy, LLC v. Chapman, 270 F. Supp. 2d

444, 459 ( S. D. N. Y. 2003) . However , [ w] hi l e t her e ar e di f f er ent

pr oof i ssues i n t hese [ f eder al and st at e di scr i mi nat i on] cl ai ms,

t hi s r esul t occur s i n vi r t ual l y al l ci vi l r i ght s cases and cannot

al one be the basi s upon whi ch t o deny pendent j ur i sdi ct i on.

10



11/19

Wi l l i ams v. Chase Manhat t an Bank, N. A. , 728 F. Supp. 1004, 1010

( S. D. N. Y. 1990) . Ther e ar e a var i et y of t ool s avai l abl e t o l i mi t

pot ent i al j ur y conf usi on, i ncl udi ng j ur y i nst r uct i ons and speci al

ver di ct f or ms. See Kl ei n v. London St ar Lt d. , 26 F. Supp. 2d 689,

694 ( S. D. N. Y. 1998) ( not i ng j ur y conf usi on may be abated by pr oper

j ury i nst r uct i ons and speci al ver di ct f or ms) . Gi ven t hese t ool s,

I can see no r eason why compet ent counsel . . . wi l l l ack t he

abi l i t y to pr esent t he i ssues t o t he j ur y cogent l y and

under st andabl y, or why f eder al j ur or s wi l l not be abl e t o

underst and t he i ssues t hat wi l l be pr esent ed t o t hem. Ansoumana

v. Gr i st ede s Oper at i ng Cor p. , 201 F. R. D. 81, 95 ( S. D. N. Y. 2001) .

Ther ef or e, I r ecommend t hat t he pl ai nt i f f - i nter venor s be al l owed t o

br i ng cl ai ms under NYCHRL.

C. I ndi vi dual Cl ai ms Rel at ed t o Br east f eedi ng

1. Ti t l e VI I Cl ai m

Ti t l e VI I encompasses t he Pr egnancy Di scr i mi nat i on Act of

1978, enact ed by Congr ess t o ensur e that Ti t l e VI I sex

di scr i mi nat i on cl ai ms i ncl ude di scr i mi nat i on based on pr egnancy,

chi l d bi r t h, or r el at ed medi cal condi t i ons. 42 U. S. C. 2000e- ( k) .

Vamco poi nt s t o a pr evi ous case i n t hi s di st r i ct t hat di smi ssed a

Ti t l e VI I cl ai m brought by a breast f eedi ng mot her al l egi ng sex-

pl us di scr i mi nat i on. Mar t i nez v. NBC, I nc. , 49 F. Supp. 2d 305,

30810 ( S. D. N. Y. 1999) . Sex- pl us di scr i mi nat i on occur s when one

11



12/19

gender exper i ences di spar ate t r eat ment when consi dered i n

conj unct i on wi t h a secondar y char act er i st i c shar ed by bot h gender s.

The cour t i n t hat case f ound t hat because men cannot l act at e, t her e

i s no shar ed pl us char act er i st i c. I d. ( The dr awi ng of

di st i nct i ons among per sons of one gender on t he basi s of cr i t er i a

t hat ar e i mmat er i al t o t he ot her , whi l e i n gi ven cases per haps

depl or abl e, i s not t he sor t of behavi or cover ed by Ti t l e VI I . ) .

Vamco cl ai ms t hat t hi s f or ecl oses any Ti t l e VI I cl ai mbased on Ms.

DeMi cco s br east f eedi ng. ( Def . Memo. at 11) .

However , a recent Fi f t h Ci r cui t case expr essl y hel d t hat

adver se empl oyment act i on agai nst a f emal e empl oyee because she was

expr essi ng mi l k vi ol at es Ti t l e VI I . EEOC v. Houst on Fundi ng I I ,

Lt d. , 717 F. 3d 425, 428- 30 ( 5t h Ci r . 2013) ; see al so Fal k v. Ci t y

of Gl endal e, No. 12 Ci v. 925, 2012 WL 2390556, at *4 (D. Col o. J une

25, 2012) ( t heor i zi ng t hat Ti t l e VI I coul d suppor t l actat i on-

r el at ed cl ai ms i f ot her cowor ker s wer e al l owed t o t ake br eaks t o

use t he r est r oom whi l e l act at i ng mot her s wer e banned f r om

pumpi ng) . I n par t i cul ar , t he Fi f t h Ci r cui t hel d t hat l actat i on

i s a rel at ed medi cal condi t i on of pr egnancy f or pur poses of t he

PDA, based on t he pl ai n meani ng of t he st at ut e s t ext . I d. The

Fi f t h Ci r cui t di st i ngui shed Mar t i nez as hol di ng t hat pr egnancy and

r el at ed medi cal condi t i ons ar e not di sabi l i t i es t hat r equi r e

accommodat i on f or pur poses of t he Amer i cans wi t h Di sabi l i t i es Act ,

12



13/19

and f ai l i ng t o addr ess whet her l act at i on i s a medi cal condi t i on

pr ot ect ed under t he PDA. 717 F. 3d at 429 n. 6. Wher e a pl ai nt i f f s

cl ai mf ocuses on adver se empl oyment act i ons or condi t i ons r el at i ng

t o her l act at i on br eaks, as opposed t o an al l eged f ai l ur e t o

accommodat e a di sabi l i t y, an empl oyer may be l i abl e under Ti t l e

VI I . 1 I d.

I n t he Pr oposed Compl ai nt , Ms. DeMi cco al l eges t hat she was

har assed f or t aki ng l act at i on br eaks and event ual l y t er mi nat ed.

( Prop. Compl . , 73) . Ther ef or e, i t appear s t hat Ms. DeMi cco may

be abl e t o st at e a cl ai m f or di spar at e t r eat ment under Ti t l e VI I

based on di scr i mi nat i on i n connect i on wi t h her at t empt s t o cont i nue

br east f eedi ng her i nf ant .

2. Pr i vat e Ri ght of Act i on under t he FLSA and NYLL

i . Sect i on 207( r ) of t he FLSA

As amended by t he Pat i ent Pr ot ect i on and Af f or dabl e Car e Act ,

t he FLSA now r equi r es empl oyer s t o pr ovi de br eaks f or nur si ng

1 The Depart ment of Labor ( DOL) al so endorses t he i dea t hata Ti t l e VI I cl ai m may be pr emi sed on di scr i mi nat i on r el at ed t obr east f eedi ng. See Reasonabl e Br eak Ti me f or Nur si ng Mother , 75Fed. Reg. 80073, 80078 (Dec. 21, 2010) ( I f an empl oyer t r eat s

empl oyees who t ake br eaks t o expr ess br east mi l k di f f er ent l y t hanempl oyees who t ake br eaks f or other per sonal r easons, t he nur si ngempl oyee may have a cl ai m f or di spar at e t r eat ment under Ti t l eVI I . ) . Whi l e t he DOL i s not t he agency char ged wi t h enf or ci ngTi t l e VI I , i t s i nt er pret at i on i s nonet hel ess i nst r uct i ve, andconf or ms wi t h t he EEOC s i nt erpr et at i on. See Houst on Fundi ng I I ,Lt d. , 717 F. 3d at 429.

13



14/19

mot her s t o expr ess br east mi l k, f or up t o one year post - par t um.

See 29 U. S. C. 207( r ) ( 1) ( A) . Si nce Mar ch 23, 2010, al l empl oyer s

have been r equi r ed t o of f er el i gi bl e empl oyees an appr opr i at e

l ocat i on, other t han a bathr oom, and reasonabl e t i me to pump br east

mi l k f or t hei r nur si ng i nf ant s. 29 U. S. C. 207( r ) ( 1) . Such

br eaks need not be pai d. 29 U. S. C. 207( r ) ( 2) . Empl oyer s who

vi ol at e 207 ar e l i abl e t o the empl oyee or empl oyees af f ect ed i n

t he amount of t hei r unpai d mi ni mumwages, or t hei r unpai d over t i me

compensat i on, as t he case may be, and i n an addi t i onal equal amount

as l i qui dated damages. 29 U. S. C. 216( b) . New Yor k has enacted

si mi l ar pr ot ect i ons f or nur si ng mot her s, mandat i ng up t o t hr ee

year s of l act at i on br eaks. NYLL 206- c.

The def endant asser t s t hat Ms. DeMi cco s FLSA and NYLL cl ai ms

f ai l because t her e i s no pr i vat e r i ght of act i on under ei t her l aw.

( Def . Memo. at 6- 7, 810) . Vamco r el i es on a r ecent deci si on by a

di st r i ct cour t i n I owa, Sal z v. Casey s Mar ket i ng Co. , No. 11 CV

3055, 2012 WL 2952998, at *3 ( N. D. I owa J ul y 19, 2012) , whi ch

di smi ssed a pl ai nt i f f s cl ai m asser t i ng di r ect vi ol at i on of

207( r ) . The pl ai nt i f f s cl ai ms of const r uct i ve di schar ge and

r etal i atory act i on based on t he same conduct were al l owed t o go

f or war d. I d. at *4. The cour t concl uded t hat because 207( r )

does not r equi r e empl oyers t o compensat e empl oyees f or l actat i on

br eaks and t he enf or cement pr ovi si ons f or 207 ar e l i mi t ed t o

14



15/19

unpai d wages, see 29 U. S. C. 216( b) , t here does not appear t o be a

manner of enf or ci ng t he expr ess br east mi l k pr ovi si ons. I d. at

*3. The cour t al so r el i ed on a not i ce i ssued by t he DOL t hat i n

most ci r cumst ances t here wi l l not be any unpai d mi ni mum wage and

over t i me compensat i on r esul t i ng f r om t he f ai l ur e t o pr ovi de

l act at i on br eaks. Reasonabl e Br eak Ti me f or Nur si ng Mot her s, 75

Fed. Reg. 80073, 80078. The DOL not ed t hat wher e an empl oyer

vi ol at ed t he requi r ement s of 207( r ) , t he DOL may seek i nj unct i ve

r el i ef i n f eder al di st r i ct cour t , and may obt ai n r ei nst at ement and

l ost wages f or t he empl oyee. I d. The onl y ot her cour t t o

ent er t ai n a 207( r ) cl ai m br ought by an i ndi vi dual r eached t he

mer i t s and di smi ssed t he cl ai mwi t hout addr essi ng whet her a pr i vat e

cause of act i on exi st ed. Mi l l er v. Roche Sur et y & Casual t y Co. ,

I nc. , 502 F. App x 891, 893 ( 11t h Ci r . 2012) .

I n any event , t hi s i ssue need not be deci ded now. Even i f

t her e wer e a pr i vat e cause of act i on t o enf or ce 207( r ) , Ms.

DeMi cco does not al l ege any l ost compensat i on r esul t i ng f r om

Vamco s conduct . ( Pr op. Compl . , 102) . Pr i vat e l i t i gant s seeki ng

r el i ef f or vi ol at i ons of t he FLSA s wage and over t i me pr ovi si ons

ar e l i mi t ed t o r ecover y of unpai d mi ni mum wages, over t i me

compensat i on, and an equal amount i n l i qui dated damages. 29 U. S. C.

216( b) ; see al so Ruggl es v. Wel l poi nt , I nc. , 253 F. R. D. 61, 68

( N. D. N. Y. 2008) . There are no such damages cl ai med here. Whi l e

15



16/19

t he FLSA s ant i - r et al i at i on pr ovi si on does al l ow f or i nj unct i ve

r el i ef , see 29 U. S. C. 216( b) , Ms. DeMi cco does not seek t o br i ng

a r et al i at i on cl ai m r el at ed t o Vamco s al l eged f ai l ur e t o

accommodate her breast f eedi ng needs. ( Prop. Compl . , 98- 102) .

I t heref ore recommend t hat Ms. DeMi cco not be permi t t ed t o j oi n an

FLSA cl ai m f or vi ol at i on of 207( r ) .

i i . Sect i on 206- c of t he NYLL

The st at utor y t ext of t he NYLL 206- c i s si l ent as t o whet her

i t cr eat es a pr i vat e r i ght of act i on. To det er mi ne whet her such a

r i ght may nonet hel ess be f ai r l y i mpl i ed i n t he st at ut e and i t s

l egi sl at i ve hi st or y, New Yor k cour t s consi der ( 1) whet her t he

pl ai nt i f f i s one of t he cl ass f or whose par t i cul ar benef i t t he

st at ut e was enact ed; ( 2) whet her r ecogni t i on of a pr i vat e ri ght of

act i on woul d pr omot e t he l egi sl at i ve pur pose; and ( 3) whet her t he

creat i on of such a r i ght woul d be consi st ent wi t h t he l egi sl at i ve

scheme. Marai a v. Or ange Regi onal Medi cal Cent er , 63 A. D. 3d 1113,

1116, 882 N. Y. S. 2d 287, 289- 90 ( 2d Dep t 2009) ( i nt er nal quotat i on

mar ks ommi t t ed) . The t hi r d f act or i s t he most i mpor t ant i nqui r y.

I d. , 882 N. Y. S. 2d at 290 ( ci t i ng Br i an Hoxi e s Pai nt i ng Co. v.

Cat o- Mer i di an Cent r al School Di st r i ct , 76 N. Y. 2d 207, 212, 557

N. Y. S. 2d 280, 282 ( 1990) ) . The onl y cour t t o pass on t hi s pr eci se

i ssue hel d t hat NYLL 206- c does not cr eat e a pr i vat e r i ght of

act i on. Kr at zer t v. Whi t e Lodgi ng Ser vi ces, I nc. , No. 1- 09- CV- 597,

16



17/19

2010 WL 883677, at *1 ( N. D. N. Y. March 8, 2010) . I n a spar e

opi ni on, t he cour t f ound t hat t o i mpl y a pr i vat e r i ght of act i on

woul d be i nconsi st ent wi t h t he l egi sl at i ve scheme, as t he

l egi sl at i ve goal was t o i mpr ove wor kpl ace condi t i ons gener al l y and

not t o est abl i sh a vehi cl e f or t he compensat i on of par t i cul ar

i ndi vi dual s . I d.

However , t he Cour t here does not need t o reach t hi s i ssue as

i t pr esent s an unset t l ed quest i on of st at e l aw. ( Def . Memo. at 9) .

Concer ns of comi t y [ ar e] especi al l y i mpl i cat ed when st at e l aw has

not been def i ni t i vel y i nt er pr et ed by t he st at e cour t s. Chenensky,

942 F. Supp. 2d at 395; see al so Br ay v. Ci t y of New Yor k, 356 F.

Supp. 2d 277, 283- 84 ( S. D. N. Y. 2004) ( cl ai ms present i ng novel

quest i ons of st at e and l ocal l aw [ ] mi l i t at e st r ongl y agai nst

exer ci si ng suppl ement al j ur i sdi ct i on) . Gi ven t hat no New Yor k

st at e cour t has yet addr essed t hi s i ssue, i t i s appr opr i at e t o

decl i ne to exer ci se suppl ement al j ur i sdi ct i on over Ms. DeMi cco s

NYLL cl ai m.

Concl usi on

For t he f or egoi ng r easons, I r ecommend t hat t he pl ai nt i f f -

i nt er venor s mot i on t o i nt er vene (Docket no. 21) be gr ant ed i n par t

and deni ed i n par t . The pl ai nt i f f - i nt er venor s shoul d be per mi t t ed

t o br i ng cl ai ms agai nst t he def endant under Ti t l e VI I , t he NYHRL,

and t he NYCHRL, but not under 29 U. S. C. 207( r ) and NYLL 206- c.

17



18/19

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b} ( I ) and s 72, 6(a}, and 6(d} ofthe Rules of Civ i l Procedure , the pa r t i e s sha l l havefour teen (14) days from t h i s da te to f i l e wri t t en ob jec t i ons tot h i s and Recommendation. Such objec t ion sha l l be f i l ed with the Clerk of the Court , with ex t r a copies de l ive red to the chambersof the Honorable J Paul Oetken, Room 2101, 40 Foley Square , NewYork, New York, 10007 and to the chambers of the unders igned, Room1960, 500 Pear l St r e e t New York, New York 10007. Fai lu re to f i l et ob jec t i ons wi l l prec lude appe l l a t e review.

Respect fu l ly Submit ted,

MES C FRANCIS IV NITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Dated: New York, New YorkMarch 4, 2014

Copies mailed t h i s date :Thomas Lepak , E sq .El izabeth A. Grossman,Nora E. Cur t in Esq.U.S. Equal Employment Opportuni ty Commission33 Whitehal l St r e e t 5th Floor New York, NY 10004

18



19/19

Barbara A. Gross, Esq.Jean L. Schmidt , Esq.Joshua S. Hurwit , Esq.

i t t l e r Mendelson, P.C.900 Third Avenue7th FloorNew York, Y 10022Michelle A. Caiola , Esq.Legal Momentum5 Hanover SquareNew York, Y 10004

19


Magistrate Judge's Ruling on Motion to Intervene Re Vamco

Documents

Transcript of Magistrate Judge's Ruling on Motion to Intervene Re Vamco