Parkes v. Soho House + Co. Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedAugust 26, 2024
Docket1:24-cv-03821
StatusUnknown

This text of Parkes v. Soho House + Co. Inc. (Parkes v. Soho House + Co. 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
Parkes v. Soho House + Co. Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK TIFFANY ANNE PARKES, Plaintiff, 24-CV-3821 (LTS) -against- ORDER TO AMEND SOHO HOUSE & CO. INC., Defendant. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff Tiffany Anne Parkes, who is proceeding pro se, brings this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; and the Family and Medical Leave Act, alleging that her employer discriminated against her based on her sex, race, and disability.1 By order dated May 28, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days of the date of this order. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss an IFP complaint, or any portion of the complaint, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998). The Court must also

1 Plaintiff filed this complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, and that court transferred the matter here. See Parkes v. Soho House & Co. Inc., 24- CV-1401 (D. Md. May 16, 2024). dismiss a complaint when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction of the claims raised. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret

them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). But the “special solicitude” in pro se cases, id. at 475 (citation omitted), has its limits – to state a claim, pro se pleadings still must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. BACKGROUND The following facts are drawn from the complaint. Plaintiff, who currently lives in Maryland and who identifies herself as a “dark-skinned woman,” worked for an unspecified period of time at Soho House in New York. (ECF 1 at 6, 12.) In January 2023, Plaintiff was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, anxiety, and depression. (Id. at 7.) According to

Plaintiff, “employees, members, and guests” of Soho House “were seminal as to the development and progression of these diagnoses.”2 (Id.) Plaintiff recounts numerous interactions with individuals at Soho House, and asserts that these incidents show that she was the victim of discrimination. By way of example, Plaintiff alleges: During our January 18, 2023 meeting, there was bias present in Julie P.’s (a White HR Manager) questioning and reasoning. We were discussing prior conflicts as well as a scheduling issue and language used during the address of said issue.

2 The Court quotes from the complaint verbatim. All spelling, grammar, and punctuation are as in the original unless otherwise indicated. Liza C.’s, a White Food and Beverage Manager responsible for scheduling, sent a text message that reads as follows: “Hi Tiffany sorry I have been home sick did I drag something into the schedule by mistake??” When I provided a perfectly logical explanation of the technicalities involved in scheduling and asserted that Liza’s usage of language was not literal, Julie stated, “I don’t want to make any assumptions.” I began explaining that when you are allocating shifts in Paycom, you have to drag them into position; “dragging something” into the schedule by mistake would then mean that I would have an extra shift, not be at a deficit according to what I had been promised. Only then could it be inferred that Liza was indeed speaking literally about my schedule. Additionally, the word something” can be infinitely interpreted and certainly interpreted as elusive and duplicitous. Assumptions were made about the meaning of my text message but caution was exercised in Julie’s interpretation of Liza’s message, which was a clear sign that Julie was speaking in favor of Liza. Prior to this meeting, I met with Julie on January 9th, 2023 regarding concerns about the Assistant General Manager’s hostile conduct and age discrimination as well as labor malpractice. As I entered 55 Water Street to meet with HR, it was obvious that several employees had already been alerted to my arrival. This was odd as I was not scheduled to work until the late afternoon, and I had not told anyone I was arriving so early. I was also subject to retaliatory action following this meeting, which I detailed in a SO-page statement to HR. Julie requested that I provide her with a chronological account. (Id. at 10.) At some point during her employment at Soho House, Plaintiff took an “involuntary leave of absence,” after which she was fired. (Id. at 8.) Plaintiff remains “unemployed over a year later,” which she attributes to “Soho Houses’s extensive social network and an abuse of power.” (Id.) Although Plaintiff has had job interviews she has not been hired, and she has “assessed” that Soho House has “had a hand in facilitation and outcome of said interview[s].” (Id.) Plaintiff further alleges that there was “collusion” between Soho House and HVAH, a school where Plaintiff worked from 2019 through 2022, before she worked at Soho House. (Id. at 13.) Colors - Employees at both institutions began wearing particular color combinations that corresponded with trends in my IG feed and on individuals’ IG pages. Numbers - Employees at both institutions placed tonal and repetitious emphasis on particular numbers. Weather- Employees at both institutions (as well as members/guests at DUMBO House) harped on/emphasized weather conditions until different temperatures and seasons became metaphoric/symbolic. In 2019 and 2023 this corresponded with trends in my IG feed. Mimicry- repetition/mocking of “private” conversations I had on my cell phone, whether via text message or audible speech Dress Code - Inconsistencies/whimsical changes at both institutions. Sexual Harassment - Blatant and incredibly disrespectful: Two male employees at HVA, incident at DUMBO House. Never before experienced while working at a “professional” institution. Collusion: Steven R. at HVAH, Deborah M. at Dumbo House. As you might agree, it is quite strange that these same behaviors be exhibited at both completely unrelated institutions, HVAH being a charter high school and DUMBO House being a private membership club. I have audio recordings and realtime documentation. Not to mention, I audio recorded during the same shift with different devices and the behaviors of members/guests were wildly different depending on which device I used. (Id.

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

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Salahuddin v. Cuomo
861 F.2d 40 (Second Circuit, 1988)
Hill v. Curcione
657 F.3d 116 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Chukwuka v. City of New York
513 F. App'x 34 (Second Circuit, 2013)
Patane v. Clark
508 F.3d 106 (Second Circuit, 2007)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Woods v. Start Treatment & Recovery Centers, Inc.
864 F.3d 158 (Second Circuit, 2017)
T.W. v. Board of Law Examiners
996 F.3d 87 (Second Circuit, 2021)
Cuoco v. Moritsugu
222 F.3d 99 (Second Circuit, 2000)
Vega v. Hempstead Union Free School District
801 F.3d 72 (Second Circuit, 2015)
Buon v. Spindler
65 F.4th 64 (Second Circuit, 2023)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Parkes v. Soho House + Co. Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parkes-v-soho-house-co-inc-nysd-2024.