Desiderio v. Hudson Technologies, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedMay 2, 2025
Docket1:22-cv-00541
StatusUnknown

This text of Desiderio v. Hudson Technologies, Inc. (Desiderio v. Hudson Technologies, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Desiderio v. Hudson Technologies, Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK STARYL DESIDERIO, Plaintiff, OPINION & ORDER – against – 22-cv-00541 (ER) HUDSON TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and BRIAN COLEMAN, Defendants. RAMOS, D.J.: On September 3, 2024 the Court denied in part and granted in part a motion for summary judgment filed by Hudson Technologies, Inc. (“Hudson”) and Brian Coleman (together, “Defendants”). Doc. 68. Before the Court is Defendants’ motion for reconsideration with respect to the Court’s denial of summary judgment on the gender- based discrimination claims under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), and the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”). Doc. 71. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. I. BACKGROUND �e Court assumes familiarity with the underlying facts, which are described in detail in the Court’s prior opinions. See generally Desiderio v. Hudson Technologies, Inc., No. 22-cv-00541 (ER), 2024 WL 4026260 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 3, 2024) (granting and denying in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgement); Desiderio v. Hudson Technologies, Inc., No. 22-cv-00541 (ER), 2023 WL 185497 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2023) (granting and denying in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss). �e Court repeats the relevant background here for convenience. A. Factual Background Staryl Desiderio is a Florida resident. Doc. 44 ¶ 4. Desiderio’s employment with Hudson Technologies, Inc. (“Hudson”) began October 10, 2017 after Hudson acquired her former employer, Airgas Refrigerants, Inc. (“Airgas”). Doc. 63 ¶ 1. A few months after the acquisition, Desiderio was promoted to Vice President of Purchasing. Id. On March 24, 2021, Coleman promoted Desiderio to Vice President of Supply Chain Management, which included expanded responsibilities and required her to report to Coleman, Hudson’s President and Chief Executive Officer. Id. ¶ 2; Doc. 44 ¶ 11. Desiderio alleges that she worked at the Long Island City office, however, like other employees, she worked remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic. Doc. 44 ¶ 9. On June 4, 2021, two subordinates of Desiderio reported to Hudson’s Human Resources Manager, Nicole Hagan, that another employee had made sexually inappropriate comments. Doc. 63 ¶ 3. Hagan informed Desiderio of the complaint, to which Desiderio instructed Hagan to investigate further. Id. ¶ 4. On June 8, 2021, Desiderio alerted Coleman to the incidents. Id. ¶ 6. However, Coleman asserts that he did not learn the full extent of the charges until speaking with Hagan later that day. Doc. 55 ¶ 8. Coleman also learned from Hagan that, despite the allegations, Desiderio still wanted to retain the employee accused of making the inappropriate comments. Id. ¶ 9. According to Desiderio, however, because the investigation was still ongoing, she did not have all the facts at the time she met with Coleman. Doc. 63 ¶ 8. �e following day, June 9, 2021, Coleman brought Desiderio in for a meeting at Hudson’s Long Island City office (the “Long Island City meeting”). Docs. 55 ¶ 11; 44 ¶ 19. During the meeting, Coleman raised his voice in what he characterized as frustration with Desiderio’s lapse of judgement. Doc. 55 ¶ 11. According to Desiderio, she was “terrified” by Coleman who was “yelling at [her] . . . completely intimidat[ing her] . . . [s]tanding over [her],” and “treat[ing her] like . . . a child.” Doc. 62-1 at 32–34. Desiderio stated that she left the meeting “terrified, shaking, hysterical [sic] crying.” Id. at 35. �e next day Coleman sent an email to members of Hudson’s leadership, which did not mention Desiderio by name but clearly referred to her, stating that “a management-level employee had taken actions that violated our Company’s anti- harassment policy,” and that he “will not tolerate members of our leadership team who . . . turn a blind eye to such behavior rather than addressing, and remediating, it immediately.” Docs. 63 ¶ 12; 61 at 13; 62-10 at 1. Coleman also sent an email to Desiderio criticizing her handling of the situation and imposing a three-step action plan requiring Desiderio to: (1) re-take the anti- harassment manager training; (2) participate in a manager training course; and (3) update her 2021 goals to include behavioral metrics toward improving her managerial skills. Docs. 63 ¶ 13; 54-6 at 6. Coleman also informed Desiderio that he would be asking her team for feedback regarding her management skills, and would therefore be conducting a 360-manager review survey. Id. Also in June 2021, Desiderio asserts that Coleman blamed inventory shortages on Desiderio’s managerial failures. Doc. 63 ¶ 18. According to Desiderio, there was a significant worldwide shortage of refrigerants at the time resulting in price hikes and depletion, and Coleman later determined that Hudson’s inventory shortages were due to its limited space and inventory tracking problems. Docs. 63 ¶ 18; 54-6 at 11; 61 at 13. Shortly after the Long Island City meeting, Desiderio began experiencing anxiety, depression, panic attacks, and insomnia. Docs. 63 ¶ 19; 44 ¶ 22. On July 14, 2021, Desiderio’s husband texted Coleman stating that he would be taking Desiderio to the hospital the next morning. Doc. 63 ¶ 19; 54-6 at 18. Mr. Desiderio texted Coleman with an update the following day, reporting that “she [was] physically and emotionally exhausted, and was headed toward a complete breakdown.” Docs. 63 ¶ 20; 54-6 at 19. On July 16, 2021, Mr. Desiderio informed Coleman that Desiderio was ill and needed to take sick leave. Doc. 63 ¶ 21. On July 18, 2021, Mr. Desiderio sent Coleman an email which included an attached note from the hospital instructing that Desiderio remain away from work until she obtained approval to return by a psychiatrist. Id. ¶ 22; Doc. 54-6 at 25–26. Mr. Desiderio also reported that Desiderio would be undergoing therapy and asked Coleman to send any other forms that were required for leave purposes. Docs. 63 ¶ 22; 54-6 at 25. �e next day, Coleman shared his and Hagan’s cell phone numbers with Mr. Desiderio. Doc. 63 ¶ 22. Hagan then emailed Mr. Desiderio the FMLA leave forms, which Desiderio submitted on August 5, 2021. Id. ¶ 23, 24. According to Hudson, due to an oversight, Hagan never informed Desiderio that her FMLA leave had been approved, or when it was set to expire. Docs. 54-4 at 19–20; 55 ¶ 25; 62-3 at 22–23; 63 ¶ 25. On September 30, 2021, Mr. Desiderio emailed Coleman again, advising him that he was “told by her current therapist that the thought of returning to work with [Coleman] terrifies her,” expressing uncertainty that the situation would improve, and that the therapist could not predict a return date. Docs. 63 ¶ 26; 54-6 at 35. �e email went on to say: “Under the circumstances, do you think it is best for her to cut ties with the company? If so, I’m asking that you put together a severance package for her. Keep in mind that she has already had to burn up her unused sick and vacation time, as well as bearing the burden of uncovered medical costs for past and future treatment.” Id.1 Mr. Desiderio also reminded Coleman in his email that Desiderio’s “40-year career [had been] destroyed in less than a month” and expressed “hope [that he] will do right by her now.” Id. When asked in her deposition if she thought that she could have returned to work by July 2022, Desiderio responded, “I don’t believe so, no.” Doc. 54-1 at 72. She also expressed that she did not become able, “from a physical and mental standpoint,” to return to work until 2023. Id. at 65.

1 Desiderio alleges that she was unaware at the time that her husband had inquired about a severance package. Doc. 63 ¶ 31. On October 22, 2021, Coleman responded, saying that “we would be willing to provide a three-month severance package. Naturally, the severance benefits would be contingent on [Desiderio’s] execution of a separation agreement including a general release, and other standard provisions.” Doc. 62-12 at 1. �e same day, Mr.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Aczel v. Labonia
584 F.3d 52 (Second Circuit, 2009)
McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp.
482 F.3d 184 (Second Circuit, 2007)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
411 U.S. 792 (Supreme Court, 1973)
Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine
450 U.S. 248 (Supreme Court, 1981)
James M. Cronin v. Aetna Life Insurance Company
46 F.3d 196 (Second Circuit, 1995)
Joyce Bickerstaff v. Vassar College
196 F.3d 435 (Second Circuit, 1999)
Tara C. Galabya v. New York City Board of Education
202 F.3d 636 (Second Circuit, 2000)
Shelley Weinstock v. Columbia University
224 F.3d 33 (Second Circuit, 2000)
Christopher Graham v. Long Island Rail Road
230 F.3d 34 (Second Circuit, 2000)
Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P.
684 F.3d 36 (Second Circuit, 2012)
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.
530 U.S. 133 (Supreme Court, 2000)
Griffin v. Ambika Corp.
103 F. Supp. 2d 297 (S.D. New York, 2000)
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Bloomberg L.P.
751 F. Supp. 2d 628 (S.D. New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Desiderio v. Hudson Technologies, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/desiderio-v-hudson-technologies-inc-nysd-2025.