Preview
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2018 11:14 PM INDEX NO. 511145/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 87 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2018
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
------------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
MARIA URENA, :
:
Plaintiff, : IndeX No. 511145/2016
:
-against- :
:
JP MORGAN CHASE, :
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
WILLIAM LI, SUPPORT
IN OF
DEFENDANTS'
MELISSA MATHEY, MOTION
SHERRI FITZJARRALD, and FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
WILLIAM BERDINI,
.
Defendants.
X
1 of 38
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2018 11:14 PM INDEX NO. 511145/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 87 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2018
TABLEOFCONTENTS
DHLe
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .....................................................................................................1
STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS........................................................................................3
........................................................................................3
Chase's Policies Prohibiting Discrimination and Harassment.............................................4
Chase's Policies Concerning Cash Differences...................................................................5
...................................................................5
Plaintiff's Inability to Comply with P&P's Leads to Corrective Action.............................6
.............................6
Plaintiff's Call to Human Resources....................................................................................7
Plaintiff's $1,001 Cash Difference and Termination...........................................................8
ARGUMENT.................................................................................................................................12
D~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
POINT I THE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST CHASE FOR
DISCRIMINATORY DISCHARGE MUST BE DISMISSED
BECAUSE PLAINTIFF'S EMPLOYMENT WAS
INDISPUTABLY TERMINATED FOR A LEGITIMATE,
NONDISCRIMINATORY REASON.......................................................13
A. Plaintiff's Cause of Action for Discriminatory Discharge Under the
New York State Human Rights Law Must Be Dismissed Because
Plaintiff Was Unqualified for Her Position, She Offers No
Evidence Giving Rise to an Inference of Discrimination, and She
Was Terminated for a Legitimate, Nondiscriminatory Reason.................13
.................13
1. Plaintiff Cannot Establish a Prima Facie Case..............................13
2. Plaintiff Was Terminated For a Legitimate,
Nondiscriminatory Reason.............................................................15
B. Plaintiff's Cause of Action for Discriminatory Discharge Under the
New York City Human Rights Law Must Be Dismissed Because
Plaintiff Was Unqualified for Her Position, She Offers No
Evidence Giving Rise to an Inference of Discrimination, and She
Was Terminated for a Legitimate, Nondiscriminatory Reason.................16
.................16
POINT II THE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST CHASE FOR
RETALIATORY DISCHARGE MUST BE DISMISSED
BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT ENGAGE IN ANY
PROTECTED ACTIVITY AND HER EMPLOYMENT WAS
.
1
2 of 38
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2018 11:14 PM INDEX NO. 511145/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 87 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2018
TERMINATED FOR A LEGITIMATE,
NONDISCRIMINATORY REASON. ......................................................17
A. Plaintiff's Cause of Action for Retaliatory Discharge Under the
NYSHRL Must Be Dismissed Because Plaintiff's Complaint
About Break-Time Was Not Protected Activity, There is No
Evidence That the Decisionmakers Were Aware of Her Complaint,
and There is No Causal Nexus Between Her Complaint and Her
Termination for an Undisputed Cash Overage ..........................................17
B. Plaintiff's Cause of Action for Retaliatory Discharge Under the
NYCHRL Must Be Dismissed Because Plaintiff's Complaint
About Break-Time Was Not Protected Activity, There is No
Evidence That the Decisionmakers Were Aware of Her Complaint,
and There is No Causal Nexus Between Her Complaint and Her
Termination for an Undisputed Cash Overage ..........................................19
POINT III THE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST CHASE FOR HOSTILE
WORK ENVIRONMENT MUST BE DISMISSED BECAUSE
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF SEVERE, PERVASIVE OR
REMOTELY HOSTILE CONDUCT........................................................20
A. Plaintiff's Cause of Action for Hostile Work Environment
Harassment Under the NYSHRL Must Be Dismissed Because
There Is No Evidence of Severe or Pervasive Intimidation,
Ridicule, or Insult on the Basis of Her Gender or Pregnancy, and
Because Even If There Was, Chase Has an Absolute Affirmative
Defense Because Plaintiff Never Reported Alleged Harassment..............20
..............20
1. Plaintiff Does Not Allege Any Hostile or Intimidating
Comments......................................................................................21
2. Chase Has An Absolute Defense under Faragher/Ellerth ............23
B. Plaintiff's Cause of Action for Hostile Work Environment
Harassment Under the NYCHRL Must Be Dismissed Because the
Comments Alleged By Plaintiff Were, At Most, Petty Slights and
Trivial Inconveniences, and Chase Cannot Be Held Liable Because
Chase Did Not Know or Have Reason to Know of the Alleged
Comments..................................................................................................24
1. Plaintiff at Most Endured Petty Slights But Was Not
Treated Less Well than Others.......................................................24
2. Chase Did Not Know and Had No Reason to Know of the
Alleged Comments.........................................................................25
11
3 of 38
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2018 11:14 PM INDEX NO. 511145/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 87 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2018
POINT IV THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO
SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THEM
UNDER THE NYSHRL AND NYCHRL.................................................25
POINT V THE CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION
OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS MUST BE DISMISSED
BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF OUTRAGEOUS
CONDUCT................................................................................................28
D~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
POINT VI THE CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS MUST BE DISMISSED BECAUSE
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE OR
ENDANGERMENT OF PLAINTIFF'S PHYSICAL SAFETY...............29
POINT VII THE CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE NEW YORK LABOR
LAW MUST BE DISMISSED BECAUSE THERE IS
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT PLAINTIFF WAS
UNDERPAID IN ANY WORKWEEK.....................................................30
POINT VIII THE TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION MUST BE DISMISSED
LAW."
BECAUSE THERE IS NO "NEW YORK CITY LABOR LAW."..........31
..........31
CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................30
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
...
111
4 of 38
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2018 11:14 PM INDEX NO. 511145/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 87 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2018
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Federal Cases
Bender v. City of New York,
78 F.3d 787 (2d Cir. 1996).......................................................................................................28
Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth,
524 ~ ~ 742
U.S. (1998).................................................................................................................23
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Celotex v. Catrett,
477 U.S.
~ ~ 317 (1986).................................................................................................................12
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton,
524 U.S.
~ ~ 775 (1998).................................................................................................................23
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Green v. Avis Budget Group, Inc.,
2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 989 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 2017).............................................................23
.............................................................23
Grewal v. Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP,
2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50131 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)................................................................20, 22
Jain v McGraw-Hill Cos.,
827 F. Supp. 2d 272 (S.D.N.Y. 2011), aff'd 506 Fed. Appx. 47 (2d Cir. 2012).....................26
.....................26
Jimenez v. Big M., Inc.,
86 F. Supp. 2d 236 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)........................................................................................15
Joseph v. Owens & Minor Distrib.,
5 F. Supp. 3d 295 (E.D.N.Y. 2014)...................................................................................17,
...................................................................................17, 19
Lindner v. IBM,
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6499 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2010)...........................................................19
Lytle v. JPMorgan Chase,
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15599 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), aff'd, 518 Fed. Appx. 49 (2d
Cir. 2013).................................................................................................................................16
.................................................................................................................................
Matthews v. Corning Inc.,
77 F. Supp. 3d 275 (W.D.N.Y. 2014)......................................................................................22
......................................................................................22
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,
411 ~ ~ 792
U.S. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(1973)...........................................................................................................13, 16
Ortiz-Moss v. N.Y. City DOT,
623 F. Supp. 2d 379 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)......................................................................................22
.
1V
5 of 38
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2018 11:14 PM INDEX NO. 511145/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 87 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2018
Pagan v. N.Y.S. Div. of Parole,
2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20752 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2003).......................................................22
.......................................................22
Ruhling v. Tribune Co.,
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116 (E.D.N.Y. 2007)....................................................................28, 29
Scott v. Harris,
550 ~ ~ 372
U.S. (2007).................................................................................................................12
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Setelius v. Nat'l Grid Elec. Servs. LLC,
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134789 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2014).....................................................23
Weber v. City of N.Y.,
973 F. Supp. 2d 227 (E.D.N.Y. 2013).....................................................................................19
.....................................................................................19
Woods v. Newburgh Enlarged City Sch. Dist.,
288 Fed. Appx. 757 (2d Cir. 2008)..........................................................................................15
State Cases
Andre v. Pomeroy,
35 N.Y.2d
~ ~ 361 (1974)..............................................................................................................12
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bagley v. Baruch College,
2012 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 6384 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty. Aug. 27, 2012).................................17,
.................................17, 18
Bischof v. Gountas-Ortiz,
2018 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1834 (Sup. Ct., Queens Cty. May 10, 2018)....................................29
Breitstein v. Michael C. Fina Co.,
2016 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3591 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty. 2016)..............................................
.............................................. passim
Brennan v. Metro. Opera Ass'n,
284 A.D.2d 66 (1st Dep't 2001)..............................................................................................14
..............................................................................................14
Diel v. Flintkote Co.,
204 A.D.2d 53 (1st Dep't 1994)..............................................................................................12
..............................................................................................12
Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind,
3 N.Y.3d
~ ~ 295 (2004)................................................................................................................17
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Howell v. New York Post Co.,
81 N.Y.2d
~ ~ 115 (1993)..............................................................................................................28
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Krzywinska v. J&J Hotel Co. LLC,
2014 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 538 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty. Jan. 27, 2014).....................................13,
.....................................13, 16
Mejia v. T.N. 888 Eighth Ave. LLC CO,
2016 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4841 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty. Dec. 21, 2016)..................................22, 24
V
6 of 38
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2018 11:14 PM INDEX NO. 511145/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 87 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2018
Novak v. Royal Life Ins. Co. of N.Y. Inc.,
284 A.D.2d 892 3d De 't 2001 .............................................................................................20
Priore v. N.Y. Yankees,
307 A.D.2d 67 1st De 't 2003 ..............................................................................................26
Sims v. Trustees of Columbia Univ. in the City of N.Y.,
2017 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4204 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty. Nov. 1, 2017).........................................18
.........................................18
Taggart v. Costabile,
131 A.D.3d 243 2d De 't 2015 .............................................................................................28
Williams v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth.,
61 A.D.3d 62 1st De 't 2009 ................................................................................................24
Zuckerman v. City of N.Y.,
49 N.Y.2d
~ ~ 557 1980 ..............................................................................................................12
Statutes
New York Civil Practice Law and .........................................................................................1
Rules.........................................................................................1
New York Labor Law..........................................................................................................2,
..........................................................................................................2, 30, 31
New York State Human Rights Law ..................................................................................... passim
Regulations
New York City Human Rights Law....................................................................................... passim
.
V1
7 of 38
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2018 11:14 PM INDEX NO. 511145/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 87 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2018
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
(" Chase"
Defendants JP Morgan Chase, N.A. ("Chase"), William Li, Melissa Mathey, Sherri
Fitzjarrald, and William Berdini, by their attorneys Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,
Defendants'
P.C., hereby submit this memorandum of law in support of Defendants motion for summary
judgment pursuant to New York Civil Practice Law and Rules ("CPLR") § 3212(a) on all causes
(" Complaint"
of action and dismissal of the Amended Verified Complaint ("Complaint") in its entirety with
prejudice.
Plaintiff alleges that she was subject to discrimination on the basis of her gender and her
pregnancy, retaliatory termination, hostile work environment, and various other unsupported
claims. the Lead Teller at a Chase was terminated for the non-
Plaintiff, Branch, legitimate,
discriminatory, non-retaliatory reason of failing to follow policies surrounding cash differences,
conduct she had received corrective action for previously. As a teller, processing and completing
financial transactions accurately, and in compliance with all policies, procedures, and regulatory
banking requirements is a key responsibility. Leading up to her termination, it is undisputed that
Plaintiff accepted a discrepancy in excess of $1,000 cash in her teller drawer on November 12,
2015. Plaintiff's cash difference was a significant violation of Chase's policy. It is also undisputed
that, only a few months earlier, in August 2015, Plaintiff had received a formal Written Warning
for overall unsatisfactory performance and failure to follow policies and procedures in April 2015
and June 2015 in incidents that resulted in the loss of many thousands of dollars to the branch and
negatively impacted a customer.
Following a thorough investigation into the November 2015 cash difference, which failed
to resolve the difference or locate any basis for it, Plaintiff's employment was appropriately
terminated. Chase's termination of Plaintiff's employment was for legitimate, non-discriminatory
reasons, and there is no evidence from which any reasonable fact-finder could conclude otherwise.
8 of 38
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2018 11:14 PM INDEX NO. 511145/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 87 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2018
Therefore, Plaintiff's claims that her termination was discriminatory and violated state and city
human rights laws must fail.
The Court should also reject Plaintiff's retaliation claims under state and city law. The
undisputed record evidence demonstrates that Plaintiff did not engage in any protected conduct,
and that even assuming she had, there is no evidence of a causal connection between her alleged
protected activity and her termination for significant policy violations. Indeed, there is no evidence
that any decisionmakers were aware of her alleged protected activity. Even Plaintiff, during her
deposition, distanced herself from her baseless retaliation claims.
Plaintiff's claims of hostile work environment must also be dismissed. The allegedly
hostile conduct - which even if amount to more than remarks coworkers about
true, nothing by
their increased workload Plaintiff's anticipated leave —were unknown to
during maternity Chase;
Plaintiff admits that she never complained or brought them to the attention of her supervisor or to
Human Resources. Further, the alleged comments do not rise above petty slights and trivial
inconveniences, which are not actionable. Therefore, Plaintiff's claims of an allegedly hostile
work environment in violation of state and city law must fail.
There also is no evidence supporting Plaintiff's causes of action for intentional or negligent
infliction of emotional distress. Finally, Plaintiff'
Preview
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2018 11:14 PM INDEX NO. 511145/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 87 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS ------------------------------------------------------------------- X : MARIA URENA, : : Plaintiff, : IndeX No. 511145/2016 : -against- : : JP MORGAN CHASE, : MEMORANDUM OF LAW WILLIAM LI, SUPPORT IN OF DEFENDANTS' MELISSA MATHEY, MOTION SHERRI FITZJARRALD, and FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WILLIAM BERDINI, . Defendants. X 1 of 38 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2018 11:14 PM INDEX NO. 511145/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 87 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2018 TABLEOFCONTENTS DHLe PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .....................................................................................................1 STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS........................................................................................3 ........................................................................................3 Chase's Policies Prohibiting Discrimination and Harassment.............................................4 Chase's Policies Concerning Cash Differences...................................................................5 ...................................................................5 Plaintiff's Inability to Comply with P&P's Leads to Corrective Action.............................6 .............................6 Plaintiff's Call to Human Resources....................................................................................7 Plaintiff's $1,001 Cash Difference and Termination...........................................................8 ARGUMENT.................................................................................................................................12 D~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ POINT I THE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST CHASE FOR DISCRIMINATORY DISCHARGE MUST BE DISMISSED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF'S EMPLOYMENT WAS INDISPUTABLY TERMINATED FOR A LEGITIMATE, NONDISCRIMINATORY REASON.......................................................13 A. Plaintiff's Cause of Action for Discriminatory Discharge Under the New York State Human Rights Law Must Be Dismissed Because Plaintiff Was Unqualified for Her Position, She Offers No Evidence Giving Rise to an Inference of Discrimination, and She Was Terminated for a Legitimate, Nondiscriminatory Reason.................13 .................13 1. Plaintiff Cannot Establish a Prima Facie Case..............................13 2. Plaintiff Was Terminated For a Legitimate, Nondiscriminatory Reason.............................................................15 B. Plaintiff's Cause of Action for Discriminatory Discharge Under the New York City Human Rights Law Must Be Dismissed Because Plaintiff Was Unqualified for Her Position, She Offers No Evidence Giving Rise to an Inference of Discrimination, and She Was Terminated for a Legitimate, Nondiscriminatory Reason.................16 .................16 POINT II THE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST CHASE FOR RETALIATORY DISCHARGE MUST BE DISMISSED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT ENGAGE IN ANY PROTECTED ACTIVITY AND HER EMPLOYMENT WAS . 1 2 of 38 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2018 11:14 PM INDEX NO. 511145/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 87 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2018 TERMINATED FOR A LEGITIMATE, NONDISCRIMINATORY REASON. ......................................................17 A. Plaintiff's Cause of Action for Retaliatory Discharge Under the NYSHRL Must Be Dismissed Because Plaintiff's Complaint About Break-Time Was Not Protected Activity, There is No Evidence That the Decisionmakers Were Aware of Her Complaint, and There is No Causal Nexus Between Her Complaint and Her Termination for an Undisputed Cash Overage ..........................................17 B. Plaintiff's Cause of Action for Retaliatory Discharge Under the NYCHRL Must Be Dismissed Because Plaintiff's Complaint About Break-Time Was Not Protected Activity, There is No Evidence That the Decisionmakers Were Aware of Her Complaint, and There is No Causal Nexus Between Her Complaint and Her Termination for an Undisputed Cash Overage ..........................................19 POINT III THE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST CHASE FOR HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT MUST BE DISMISSED BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF SEVERE, PERVASIVE OR REMOTELY HOSTILE CONDUCT........................................................20 A. Plaintiff's Cause of Action for Hostile Work Environment Harassment Under the NYSHRL Must Be Dismissed Because There Is No Evidence of Severe or Pervasive Intimidation, Ridicule, or Insult on the Basis of Her Gender or Pregnancy, and Because Even If There Was, Chase Has an Absolute Affirmative Defense Because Plaintiff Never Reported Alleged Harassment..............20 ..............20 1. Plaintiff Does Not Allege Any Hostile or Intimidating Comments......................................................................................21 2. Chase Has An Absolute Defense under Faragher/Ellerth ............23 B. Plaintiff's Cause of Action for Hostile Work Environment Harassment Under the NYCHRL Must Be Dismissed Because the Comments Alleged By Plaintiff Were, At Most, Petty Slights and Trivial Inconveniences, and Chase Cannot Be Held Liable Because Chase Did Not Know or Have Reason to Know of the Alleged Comments..................................................................................................24 1. Plaintiff at Most Endured Petty Slights But Was Not Treated Less Well than Others.......................................................24 2. Chase Did Not Know and Had No Reason to Know of the Alleged Comments.........................................................................25 11 3 of 38 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2018 11:14 PM INDEX NO. 511145/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 87 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2018 POINT IV THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THEM UNDER THE NYSHRL AND NYCHRL.................................................25 POINT V THE CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS MUST BE DISMISSED BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT................................................................................................28 D~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ POINT VI THE CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS MUST BE DISMISSED BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE OR ENDANGERMENT OF PLAINTIFF'S PHYSICAL SAFETY...............29 POINT VII THE CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE NEW YORK LABOR LAW MUST BE DISMISSED BECAUSE THERE IS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT PLAINTIFF WAS UNDERPAID IN ANY WORKWEEK.....................................................30 POINT VIII THE TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION MUST BE DISMISSED LAW." BECAUSE THERE IS NO "NEW YORK CITY LABOR LAW."..........31 ..........31 CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................30 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ... 111 4 of 38 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2018 11:14 PM INDEX NO. 511145/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 87 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2018 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Federal Cases Bender v. City of New York, 78 F.3d 787 (2d Cir. 1996).......................................................................................................28 Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 ~ ~ 742 U.S. (1998).................................................................................................................23 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. ~ ~ 317 (1986).................................................................................................................12 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. ~ ~ 775 (1998).................................................................................................................23 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Green v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 989 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 2017).............................................................23 .............................................................23 Grewal v. Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50131 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)................................................................20, 22 Jain v McGraw-Hill Cos., 827 F. Supp. 2d 272 (S.D.N.Y. 2011), aff'd 506 Fed. Appx. 47 (2d Cir. 2012).....................26 .....................26 Jimenez v. Big M., Inc., 86 F. Supp. 2d 236 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)........................................................................................15 Joseph v. Owens & Minor Distrib., 5 F. Supp. 3d 295 (E.D.N.Y. 2014)...................................................................................17, ...................................................................................17, 19 Lindner v. IBM, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6499 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2010)...........................................................19 Lytle v. JPMorgan Chase, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15599 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), aff'd, 518 Fed. Appx. 49 (2d Cir. 2013).................................................................................................................................16 ................................................................................................................................. Matthews v. Corning Inc., 77 F. Supp. 3d 275 (W.D.N.Y. 2014)......................................................................................22 ......................................................................................22 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 ~ ~ 792 U.S. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (1973)...........................................................................................................13, 16 Ortiz-Moss v. N.Y. City DOT, 623 F. Supp. 2d 379 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)......................................................................................22 . 1V 5 of 38 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2018 11:14 PM INDEX NO. 511145/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 87 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2018 Pagan v. N.Y.S. Div. of Parole, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20752 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2003).......................................................22 .......................................................22 Ruhling v. Tribune Co., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116 (E.D.N.Y. 2007)....................................................................28, 29 Scott v. Harris, 550 ~ ~ 372 U.S. (2007).................................................................................................................12 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Setelius v. Nat'l Grid Elec. Servs. LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134789 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2014).....................................................23 Weber v. City of N.Y., 973 F. Supp. 2d 227 (E.D.N.Y. 2013).....................................................................................19 .....................................................................................19 Woods v. Newburgh Enlarged City Sch. Dist., 288 Fed. Appx. 757 (2d Cir. 2008)..........................................................................................15 State Cases Andre v. Pomeroy, 35 N.Y.2d ~ ~ 361 (1974)..............................................................................................................12 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Bagley v. Baruch College, 2012 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 6384 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty. Aug. 27, 2012).................................17, .................................17, 18 Bischof v. Gountas-Ortiz, 2018 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1834 (Sup. Ct., Queens Cty. May 10, 2018)....................................29 Breitstein v. Michael C. Fina Co., 2016 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3591 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty. 2016).............................................. .............................................. passim Brennan v. Metro. Opera Ass'n, 284 A.D.2d 66 (1st Dep't 2001)..............................................................................................14 ..............................................................................................14 Diel v. Flintkote Co., 204 A.D.2d 53 (1st Dep't 1994)..............................................................................................12 ..............................................................................................12 Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 N.Y.3d ~ ~ 295 (2004)................................................................................................................17 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Howell v. New York Post Co., 81 N.Y.2d ~ ~ 115 (1993)..............................................................................................................28 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Krzywinska v. J&J Hotel Co. LLC, 2014 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 538 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty. Jan. 27, 2014).....................................13, .....................................13, 16 Mejia v. T.N. 888 Eighth Ave. LLC CO, 2016 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4841 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty. Dec. 21, 2016)..................................22, 24 V 6 of 38 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2018 11:14 PM INDEX NO. 511145/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 87 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2018 Novak v. Royal Life Ins. Co. of N.Y. Inc., 284 A.D.2d 892 3d De 't 2001 .............................................................................................20 Priore v. N.Y. Yankees, 307 A.D.2d 67 1st De 't 2003 ..............................................................................................26 Sims v. Trustees of Columbia Univ. in the City of N.Y., 2017 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4204 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty. Nov. 1, 2017).........................................18 .........................................18 Taggart v. Costabile, 131 A.D.3d 243 2d De 't 2015 .............................................................................................28 Williams v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth., 61 A.D.3d 62 1st De 't 2009 ................................................................................................24 Zuckerman v. City of N.Y., 49 N.Y.2d ~ ~ 557 1980 ..............................................................................................................12 Statutes New York Civil Practice Law and .........................................................................................1 Rules.........................................................................................1 New York Labor Law..........................................................................................................2, ..........................................................................................................2, 30, 31 New York State Human Rights Law ..................................................................................... passim Regulations New York City Human Rights Law....................................................................................... passim . V1 7 of 38 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2018 11:14 PM INDEX NO. 511145/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 87 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2018 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT (" Chase" Defendants JP Morgan Chase, N.A. ("Chase"), William Li, Melissa Mathey, Sherri Fitzjarrald, and William Berdini, by their attorneys Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, Defendants' P.C., hereby submit this memorandum of law in support of Defendants motion for summary judgment pursuant to New York Civil Practice Law and Rules ("CPLR") § 3212(a) on all causes (" Complaint" of action and dismissal of the Amended Verified Complaint ("Complaint") in its entirety with prejudice. Plaintiff alleges that she was subject to discrimination on the basis of her gender and her pregnancy, retaliatory termination, hostile work environment, and various other unsupported claims. the Lead Teller at a Chase was terminated for the non- Plaintiff, Branch, legitimate, discriminatory, non-retaliatory reason of failing to follow policies surrounding cash differences, conduct she had received corrective action for previously. As a teller, processing and completing financial transactions accurately, and in compliance with all policies, procedures, and regulatory banking requirements is a key responsibility. Leading up to her termination, it is undisputed that Plaintiff accepted a discrepancy in excess of $1,000 cash in her teller drawer on November 12, 2015. Plaintiff's cash difference was a significant violation of Chase's policy. It is also undisputed that, only a few months earlier, in August 2015, Plaintiff had received a formal Written Warning for overall unsatisfactory performance and failure to follow policies and procedures in April 2015 and June 2015 in incidents that resulted in the loss of many thousands of dollars to the branch and negatively impacted a customer. Following a thorough investigation into the November 2015 cash difference, which failed to resolve the difference or locate any basis for it, Plaintiff's employment was appropriately terminated. Chase's termination of Plaintiff's employment was for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons, and there is no evidence from which any reasonable fact-finder could conclude otherwise. 8 of 38 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/17/2018 11:14 PM INDEX NO. 511145/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 87 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/17/2018 Therefore, Plaintiff's claims that her termination was discriminatory and violated state and city human rights laws must fail. The Court should also reject Plaintiff's retaliation claims under state and city law. The undisputed record evidence demonstrates that Plaintiff did not engage in any protected conduct, and that even assuming she had, there is no evidence of a causal connection between her alleged protected activity and her termination for significant policy violations. Indeed, there is no evidence that any decisionmakers were aware of her alleged protected activity. Even Plaintiff, during her deposition, distanced herself from her baseless retaliation claims. Plaintiff's claims of hostile work environment must also be dismissed. The allegedly hostile conduct - which even if amount to more than remarks coworkers about true, nothing by their increased workload Plaintiff's anticipated leave —were unknown to during maternity Chase; Plaintiff admits that she never complained or brought them to the attention of her supervisor or to Human Resources. Further, the alleged comments do not rise above petty slights and trivial inconveniences, which are not actionable. Therefore, Plaintiff's claims of an allegedly hostile work environment in violation of state and city law must fail. There also is no evidence supporting Plaintiff's causes of action for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress. Finally, Plaintiff'