Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

NUNEZ v. A-T FIN. INFORMATION

February 10, 1997

ALINA NUNEZ, Plaintiff, against A-T FINANCIAL INFORMATION, INC., JAMES B. ANDREWS, Defendants.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: PRESKA

 LORETTA A. PRESKA, United States District Judge:

 BACKGROUND

 This action arises out of an incident that plaintiff alleges took place during her employment with defendant A-T Financial Information, Inc. ("ATF"). ATF hired the plaintiff as an account executive in December, 1994 (Complaint, P 7). At the time of her hiring, plaintiff was the only female account executive in ATF's sales force of eleven. (Complaint, P 9). Plaintiff commenced work on January 16, 1995; she alleges that she was given less responsibility than new male hires and consequently got off to a slow start with ATF, despite her excellent performances in her previously-held sales positions. (Complaint, P 12).

 On June 27, 1995, ATF's New York office hosted a sales meeting for all of the company's account executives. At the end of the day, defendant Andrews ("Andrews") and seven of the account executives, including plaintiff, went out for dinner together. (Complaint, P 13). Andrews, who was ATF's Vice President and Director of Sales and Marketing at the time of this incident, took advantage of the occasion to air his views concerning a possible reorganization of the company's sales and marketing force, as well as his impressions regarding each account executive's performance. He stated that he "liked" all of the account executives, but that they "had not sold shit," and that there were going to be "some changes" in personnel by the end of the third quarter. (Complaint, P 13).

 Plaintiff alleges that she reported Andrews's remarks to her immediate manager who merely responded, "That's unfortunate." (Complaint, P 24). She met with the same manager once again several days after the incident and, in Andrews's office, recounted the statements made by Andrews and her reactions to them. (Complaint, P 25). Plaintiff additionally met with the outside counsel charged with investigating Andrews's conduct, who advised her that she didn't have any legal claim. (Complaint, P 26).

 Plaintiff alleges that following the June 27 dinner, she experienced a high degree of difficulty in enlisting support from ATF for the deals that she had negotiated; in several instances, she failed to close the deal due to noncooperation from other ATF personnel. (Complaint, PP 27-31). She also noticed a deterioration in her working relationship with her colleagues and alleges that camaraderie gave way to uneasy, uncomfortable silence and isolation. (Complaint, P 19).

 On July 25, 1995, Andrews told plaintiff that she was "on the agenda" at an ATF Board of Directors meeting scheduled for July 31, 1995; Andrews had earlier advised plaintiff that the Board wanted to fire her for what had occurred at the June 27th dinner. (Complaint, P 37). Plaintiff then sent a letter to ATF's Board indicating that she was considering legal redress. (Complaint, P 38). Following unsuccessful attempts at resolution, ATF terminated the plaintiff on August 8, 1995. (Complaint, P 40).

 On August 23, 1995, plaintiff filed discrimination charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and on September 22, 1995, received notification of her right to sue. (Complaint, P 4). On or about December 19, 1995, plaintiff filed the present action, alleging that defendants had violated 42 U.S.C. § 2000-e et seq. and N.Y. Human Rights Law § 296. Plaintiff also raised claims of defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing under the common law of New York. Defendant ATF made a partial motion to dismiss, directed only at the common law causes of action. For the reasons that follow, defendant ATF's motion is granted in its entirety.

 DISCUSSION

 I. Standard Applicable to a Motion to Dismiss

 In deciding a motion to dismiss, I must view the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 237, 40 L. Ed. 2d 90, 94 S. Ct. 1683 (1974); Yoder v. Orthomolecular Nutrition Inst., Inc., 751 F.2d 555, 562 (2d Cir. 1985). I must accept as true the factual allegations stated in the complaint, Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 118, 108 L. Ed. 2d 100, 110 S. Ct. 975 (1990), and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 30 L. Ed. 2d 652, 92 S. Ct. 594 (1972); Hertz Corp. v. City of New York, 1 F.3d 121, 125 (2d Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1111, 127 L. Ed. 2d 375, 114 S. Ct. 1054, 114 S. Ct. 1055 (1994). A motion to dismiss can only be granted if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of her claim which would entitle her to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 2 L. Ed. 2d 80, 78 S. Ct. 99 (1957). In the present case, plaintiff is simply unable to allege a cause of action ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.