The opinion of the court was delivered by: Brieant, District Judge.
By a separate motion filed February 14, 2000, heard and fully
submitted on March 17, 2000, defendant Swiss Re moves pursuant to
Rule 12(f), Fed.R.Civ.P. to strike Plaintiff's demand for
punitive and emotional distress damages, attorneys' fees, costs,
disbursements and interest. Plaintiff filed opposition papers on
March 6, 2000.
The following facts are assumed true for purposes of these
motions. Plaintiff Jess D. McCavitt is a resident of Fairfield,
Connecticut. Defendant Swiss Re is a subsidiary of Swiss
Reinsurance Inc., a Swiss corporation. Swiss Re has its principal
offices in Armonk, New York. This Court has subject matter
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
In 1996, Plaintiff entered the employment of Defendant, within
the State of New York and became a senior vice president. At
about the same time, he also began "dating" Ms. Diane Butler,
Defendant's Manager of Client Services and also a senior vice
president. Plaintiff did not report directly to Ms. Butler at any
point during his employment with Swiss Re. Plaintiff alleges and
the Court assumes for purposes of the motion that his
relationship with Ms. Butler occurred entirely after working
hours, and that it had no adverse impact on his work.
In June 1999, Ms. Butler informed Mary Borba, Defendant's
Senior Vice President of Human Resources of her relationship with
Plaintiff. Later that month, Defendant denied Plaintiff
appointment to a newly created Claims Manager position. Plaintiff
claims that many senior Swiss Re managers believed he should have
been appointed to the position, and that he was bypassed for
promotion because of his relationship with Ms. Butler. In early
July 1999, Ms. Borba informed Plaintiff that he would be
terminated. Defendant's Senior Vice President provided a written
explanation for Plaintiff's termination. The explanation stated
that Plaintiff's job "went away", but focused largely on the
relationship between Plaintiff and Ms. Butler. The explanation
stated that there were no available positions at the time of
Plaintiff's discharge, but Plaintiff states that some were
available. Plaintiff's employment was terminated August 16, 1999,
and his responsibilities were transferred to other individuals.
Plaintiff filed this action on November 30, 1999. For purposes of
the motion, the Court assumes Plaintiff was terminated solely by
reason of his off-duty relationship with a fellow officer of the
In determining whether the complaint states a claim, the Court
must accept as true all material facts alleged in the complaint
and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving
party. Thomas v. City of New York, 143 F.3d 31, 36-37 (2d Cir.
1998). Dismissal is appropriate where "it appears beyond doubt
that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim
which would entitle him to relief." Id.; Scotto v. Almenas,
143 F.3d 105, 109-110 (2d Cir. 1998). This case is founded solely on
§ 201-d of the New York Labor Law, which reads in relevant part
§ 201-d. Discrimination against the engagement in
1. Definitions. As used in this section:
2. Unless otherwise provided by law, it shall be
unlawful for any employer or employment agency to
refuse to hire, employ or license, or to discharge
from employment or otherwise discriminate against an
individual in compensation, promotion ...