Keenan v. Bloomberg, LP

2025 NY Slip Op 30701(U)

• Court: New York Supreme Court, New York County
• Decided: March 3, 2025
• Docket: Index No. 155679/2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Keenan v Bloomberg, LP 2025 NY Slip Op 30701(U) March 3, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 155679/2024 Judge: Paul A. Goetz Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. INDEX NO. 155679/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 15 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/03/2025

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. PAUL A. GOETZ PART 47 Justice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 155679/2024 SUSAN KEENAN MOTION DATE 09/13/2024 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 -v- BLOOMBERG, LP, DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Defendant. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 were read on this motion to/for DISMISS .

In this employment discrimination action, plaintiff’s causes of action include disparate

treatment, disparate impact, hostile work environment, and retaliation based on sex and age in

violation of the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), the New York City Human

Rights Law (NYCHRL), and New York Labor Law § 194 (Equal Pay Act, or EPA). Defendant

now moves pursuant to CPLR § 3211(a)(5) and (7) to dismiss all of plaintiff’s claims, except for

her retaliation claims based on alleged protected activity from May 2022 through 2024 that are

unrelated to her late-night schedule.

Statute of Limitations

Defendant first argues that plaintiff’s discrimination and retaliation claims relating to

conduct that took place prior to June 20, 2021 must be dismissed as untimely because under the

NYSHRL and NYCHRL, such claims “must be commenced within three years after the alleged

unlawful discriminatory and/or retaliatory conduct” (NYSCEF Doc No 6 [noting that “Plaintiff’s

Complaint contains allegations dating back as far as 2012”]). Plaintiff opposes, arguing that all

of her claims are timely pursuant to the continuing violations doctrine (Ferraro v New York City 155679/2024 KEENAN, SUSAN vs. BLOOMBERG, LP Page 1 of 6 Motion No. 001

1 of 6 [* 1] INDEX NO. 155679/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 15 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/03/2025

Dept. of Educ., 115 AD3d 497, 497-98 [1st Dept 2014] [continuing violations doctrine applies

where plaintiff alleges facts comprising “a single continuing pattern of unlawful conduct

extending into the [limitations] period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint”]).

“[P]laintiff has adequately alleged a single continuing pattern . . . which permits

consideration under the [] HRL of all actions relevant to [those] claim[s], including those that

would otherwise be time-barred” (Jeudy v City of New York, 142 AD3d 821, 823 [1st Dept

2016]). For example, plaintiff alleges that “[b]eginning in 2019 and continuing through 2023

[plaintiff’s] Asia-TV managers were deliberately skewing the written portion of her Evaluations

to downplay or omit her achievements each year, despite verbally praising her”; by 2022,

plaintiff “was being pressured to work past midnight on an almost daily basis” while “male and

younger TV peers were not being treated [the same] way”; and after plaintiff complained of

schedule changes which “only impacted the two oldest female BTV newscasters,” plaintiff was

increasingly “phased out” and replaced by younger colleagues (NYSCEF Doc No 1 ¶¶ 119, 136,

141, 157, 194; see also During v City Univ. of N.Y., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9796, *9 [SDNY

2002] [internal citation omitted] [“Plaintiff’s Complaint [] provide[s] sufficient detail that the

court may infer the existence of continuing violations. For example, Plaintiff alleges that

‘beginning in or about 1984 and continuing to the present defendants have engaged in a pattern

and practice of discrimination directed against plaintiff.’”]).

“[I]t cannot be said, as a matter of law, that these [discriminatory and retaliatory] acts, if

proven, were not part of a single continuing pattern of unlawful conduct extending into the

[three]-year period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint” (Ferraro, 115 AD3d at

497-98; Petit v Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 177 AD3d 402, 403-04 [1st Dept 2019]

[same]; During, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9796 at *9 [“the court is unable to find that Plaintiff’s

155679/2024 KEENAN, SUSAN vs. BLOOMBERG, LP Page 2 of 6 Motion No. 001

2 of 6 [* 2] INDEX NO. 155679/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 15 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/03/2025

Complaint contains no set of facts sufficient to find a continuing violation for both

discrimination and retaliation”]). Therefore, at this stage in the litigation, plaintiff’s

discrimination and retaliation claims will not be dismissed as untimely.

Failure to State a Claim

Separate from the timeliness issue, defendant argues that plaintiff’s causes of action

should be dismissed because she failed to state a claim. Specifically, defendant argues that (i)

plaintiff’s discrimination and hostile work environment claims fail because she failed to allege

discriminatory animus, and her retaliation claims fail because she did not plead any adverse

actions that could be causally related to the protected activity she engaged in during the relevant

period; and (ii) plaintiff’s EPA claim fails because she did not adequately identify any

comparators outside her protected classes that were paid more than her (NYSCEF Doc No 6).

Plaintiff argues that each of her claims were adequately pled (NYSCEF Doc No 13).

(i) Discrimination, Hostile Work Environment & Retaliation Claims

Both the NYSHRL and NYCHRL require that their provisions be “construed liberally” to

accomplish the remedial purposes of prohibiting discrimination (NYSHRL § 300; NYCHRL § 8-

130; Albunio v City of New York, 16 NY3d 472, 477-478 [2011]; Matter of Binghamton GHS

Ernpls. Fed. Credit Union v State Div. of Human Rights, 77 NY2d 12, 18 [1990]). On a motion

to dismiss, “employment discrimination cases are [] generally reviewed under notice pleading

standards[;] a plaintiff alleging employment discrimination ‘need not plead [specific facts

establishing] a prima facie case of discrimination’ but need only give ‘fair notice’ of the nature

of the claim and its grounds” (Vig v New York Hairspray Co., LP, 67 AD3d 140, 145 [1st Dept

2009] [internal citation omitted]).

155679/2024 KEENAN, SUSAN vs. BLOOMBERG, LP Page 3 of 6 Motion No. 001

3 of 6 [* 3] INDEX NO. 155679/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 15 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/03/2025

Plaintiff alleges that she was a member of two protected classes, based on her sex and

age; she was qualified for her position, having 25 years of experience as a news anchor for

defendant; she was subject to various adverse employment actions and treated differently from

other employees (e.g., as compared to younger and male employees, plaintiff was paid less,

given less favorable assignments, scheduled for late-night shifts, and not given appropriate

equipment for remote work); and a discriminatory animus can be inferred (see generally,

NYSCEF Doc No 1). Plaintiff also alleges that, after making clear complaints about the

perceived discriminatory conduct, the work environment became increasingly more hostile,

culminating in her termination (id.).

At this stage, “it cannot be said, as a matter of law, that the facts alleged by plaintiff, if

proven, would not constitute discrimination, retaliation and a hostile work environment in

violation of the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws” (Ferraro, 115 AD3d

at 497). Rather, “[c]rediting plaintiff’s allegations for the purpose of this pre-answer, pre-

discovery motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) and (7),” the complaint

is “sufficient to give defendant [] ‘fair notice’ of the nature of plaintiff’s claims and their

grounds” (Petit, 177 AD3d at 403). Therefore, plaintiff’s discrimination, hostile work

environment, and retaliation claims will not be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

(ii) Equal Pay Claim

New York’s EPA prohibits employers from paying an “employee with status within [a]

protected class [] at a rate less than the rate at which an employee without [such] status [] in the

same establishment is paid for” equal or substantially similar work requiring equal or

substantially similar skill (NY Labor Law § 194). To state a claim for violation of the EPA1,

1 “An equal pay claim under New York Labor Law § 194 is analyzed under the same standards applicable to the federal Equal Pay Act” (Wu v Good Samaritan Hosp. Med. Ctr., 815 F Appx 575, 580 n.5 [2nd Cir 2020]). 155679/2024 KEENAN, SUSAN vs. BLOOMBERG, LP Page 4 of 6 Motion No. 001

4 of 6 [* 4] INDEX NO. 155679/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 15 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/03/2025

plaintiff’s work “need not be identical,” but must be at least “substantially equal,” to that of her

higher-paid comparators (Kent v Papert Cos., 309 AD2d 234, 246 [1st Dept 2003]). However,

“broad generalizations drawn from job titles, classifications, or divisions, and conclusory

assertions of [] discrimination, cannot suffice” (EEOC v Port Auth of NY & NJ, 768 F3d 247,

256 [2nd Cir 2014]).

Here, as defendant notes, plaintiff’s complaint does not identify her purported

comparators by name, or provide details as to their backgrounds and experiences indicating that

they are appropriate comparators (NYSCEF Doc No 1 ¶¶ 42, 52-53, 200 [plaintiff alleging she

received lower compensation and/or bonuses than “one of Plaintiff’s Asia-TV female teammates

in her mid-twenties with just over two years on the job,” “male TV peers with 20+ years at

Bloomberg,” “a male comparator 20 years her junior,” a “male comparator[] with similar

experience and skills and performing substantially similar work” and “one significantly younger

male colleague”). Plaintiff argues that this is immaterial, citing Zherka v Tower Group Cos., Inc.,

2011 NY Slip Op 33985[U], *6-7 [SC NY Co 2011], in which the defendant’s motion to dismiss

the plaintiffs’ EPA claim was denied because, even though plaintiffs “omit[ted] their own

compensation as a baseline by which to compare the allegedly discriminatory unequal pay

provided to male employees and the identity of the higher paid employees,” they at least

provided the gender, title and dates of occurrences. Plaintiff claims she identified her

comparators in reports she made to defendant’s human resources department, but those reports

were not attached to her complaint or opposition to defendant’s motion (NYSCEF Doc No 13).

In a separate section of her opposition, “Plaintiff seeks leave to amend under CPLR 3025 to

further demonstrate that these comparators, identified internally to Bloomberg, were treated

more favorably than Plaintiff,” but plaintiff did not file a cross-motion to that effect.

155679/2024 KEENAN, SUSAN vs. BLOOMBERG, LP Page 5 of 6 Motion No. 001

5 of 6 [* 5] INDEX NO. 155679/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 15 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/03/2025

On the papers submitted, it is unclear whether the higher paid employees plaintiff alludes

to can fairly be deemed her comparators. However, in light of plaintiff’s specific allegations as to

the discrepancies in pay (see, e.g., NYSCEF Doc No 1 ¶¶ 42-42, 52-53 [alleging a “female

teammate[]” with only two years of experience received a bonus of $5,000/year, whereas

plaintiff’s bonus was capped at $2,500/year; a male comparator 20 years her junior “was paid

$100,000.00 a year more than Plaintiff and more than double her yearly bonus”; and another

male comparator with similar experience and duties “was being paid $250,000.00+ more a year,

with a bonus approximately 20 times greater than that of Plaintiff’s”] [emphasis omitted]) and

her references to reports which have not yet been submitted, her claim will not be dismissed at

this early stage without the benefit of discovery.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that defendant’s motion is denied.

3/3/2025 DATE PAUL A. GOETZ, J.S.C. CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

□ GRANTED X DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER

APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER

□ CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE

155679/2024 KEENAN, SUSAN vs. BLOOMBERG, LP Page 6 of 6 Motion No. 001

6 of 6 [* 6]