Professional Documents
Culture Documents
-------------------------------------x
LISA MARIE CATER,
-against- OPINION
Defendants.
-------------------------------------x
APPEARANCES:
Sweet, D.J.
Based upon the conclusion set forth, the motion of the Defendant
Prior Proceedings
June 21, 2018 granting the motion to dismiss by the State of New
1
Case 1:17-cv-09032-RWS Document 62 Filed 02/04/19 Page 3 of 24
him where she lived" and "began stalking" her. (Id. !! 41, 43-
she began Plaintiff began working for the State. (Id. ! 47.)
accepted. (Id. ! 54.) Hoyt worked at ESDC, not the OMV, (id.
including:
<JI 60.)
any chance he had." (Id. ! 30.) Cater remained at OMV until July
2016, when her cat attacked her and injured her right hand to
with legal action, on October 26, 2016, the parties entered into
limited to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the New
York State Human Rights Law." (Cohen Deel. ! 2, Ex. A!! 3, 5.)
acknowledged that:
job for the Plaintiff. For example, despite New York State
Declaration dated February 14, 2018. (Pl. Deel. <JI<][ 1-2.) The
email, telephone and text message. (Arn. Cplt. <J[<J[ 77-80, 103-
Plaintiff and advised her that JCOPE would never help her
find one who was willing to handle her case against the
that he "deals with these kind of things all the time." (Pltf.
not in the office, and had not yet signed the document. (Pltf.
stating that he had lost the signature page for the "Settlement,
her to "go and seek help" for her mental, physical and emotional
does not understand whether the terms of the agreement that she
Park (Am. Cplt. <JI 87); forced himself on her in her own home
(Id. <JI<JI 43-46); and sent her nude photos of himself (Id. <JI 63).
take away the job he had provided Plaintiff. (Id. <JI 66.) As the
aggressively telling her that she should "be grateful" for the
job he got her and that "the job could go away at any time."
by saying that JCOPE would never help her because he was too
agreement was the best she could ever hope to get. (Pltf. Deel.
if she did not sign the release agreement she would not only
sign the agreement she would be blacklisted from the region that
Hoyt politically controls and believed that if she did not sign
the document, she not only would never be able to get her job at
the OMV back, and that she would never be able to work in
government again.
against him on May 29, 2018. The instant mo tion was heard and
10
Case 1:17-cv-09032-RWS Document 62 Filed 02/04/19 Page 12 of 24
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.
Apr. 30, 2013) (quoting Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d
110, 120 (2d Cir. 2010)); Prince v. Madison Square Garden, 427
properly before the Court on a Rule 12(b) (6) motion. See Burke
v. Lash Work Env'ts, Inc., 408 F. App'x 438, 441 (2d Cir. 2011
No. 12 Civ. 675 (NRB), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139602, at *12
(PAE), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130673, at *26 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23,
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14529, at *16, *24, *35 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 11,
inducement) .
136, 142 (2d Cir. 2011)), aff'd, 588 F. App'x 54 (2d Cir. 2014).
(AJP), 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25791, at *9-10 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 31,
13
Case 1:17-cv-09032-RWS Document 62 Filed 02/04/19 Page 15 of 24
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the New York State Human
"invo lun tariness ," (Arn. Compl. i i 35 , 97, 98, 99 , 100), and she
rendering it enforceable.
Nat'l Football League, 244 F.3d 114, 122-23 (2d Cir. 2001); see
~~ 35, 97.) She then brought this action without first repaying
Palace Hotel, No. 03 Civ. 0091 (DLI) (WOW), 2005 U.S. Dist.
(MBM), 199 U.S, Dist. LEXIS 8905, at *50 (S.D.N.Y. June 26,
ratification").
The§ 1983 Claims Are Dismissed (the First, Second and Fourth
Causes of Action)
No. 00 Civ. 8877 (AGS), 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5537, at *19-20
Hoyt was not her supervisor, (Pl. Opp. Mem. at 2 1), nor did he
had the power to affect her actual employment-and not just the
Indus. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 759 (1998) (in cases where
reasonable basis for her apparent belief that Hoyt had "absolute
supervised and/or fired at any time. (Am. Compl. ~~ 26, 37, 61.)
Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged that Hoyt acted under the
524 U.S. at 753-54; Feingold v. N.Y., 366 F.3d 138, 156 (2d Cir.
Mem. at 19-20.)
18
Case 1:17-cv-09032-RWS Document 62 Filed 02/04/19 Page 20 of 24
thus fail.
19
Case 1:17-cv-09032-RWS Document 62 Filed 02/04/19 Page 21 of 24
N.Y., No. 14 Civ. 8391 (JMF), 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58465, at
dismissed.
from filing a timely action (which he did not do). Rather, the
her into filing a belated lawsuit, and thus she fails to show
dismissed as untimely.
22
Case 1:17-cv-09032-RWS Document 62 Filed 02/04/19 Page 24 of 24
Conclusion
It is so ordered.
New York, NY
January ;Jfj , 2019
ROBERT W. SWEET
U.S.D.J.
23