New York Appellate Division Affirms Decision in Employment Discrimination Lawsuit Against CBS Corporation

A recent case before the New York Appellate Division has garnered attention as it involved a lawsuit seeking damages for employment discrimination based on sex. The plaintiff in the case made serious allegations against certain male supervisors and coworkers, claiming sexual harassment, unfavorable treatment compared to her male counterparts, and ultimately being terminated after an altercation at an employer-sponsored event. The case took an interesting turn when CBS Corporation, the parent company of the plaintiff’s direct employer, filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint against it, citing Section 3211(a)(7) of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules.

Plaintiff’s claims

The plaintiff’s claims revolved around the alleged sexual harassment she experienced from male supervisors and coworkers. She asserted that she was subjected to unwelcome advances, inappropriate comments, and a hostile work environment. Additionally, the plaintiff claimed that she received unfavorable treatment when compared to her male counterparts, citing instances of being passed over for promotions and denied equal opportunities. Moreover, she contended that her termination was a direct result of an altercation at an employer-sponsored event, where she claimed she was unfairly targeted.

CBS Corporation’s motion to dismiss

In response to the lawsuit, CBS Corporation, as the parent company of the plaintiff’s direct employer, filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. They relied on Section 3211(a)(7) of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, which allows for the dismissal of a lawsuit when the pleading fails to state a cause of action. CBS Corporation argued that there was a lack of evidence connecting them directly to the alleged discrimination and termination.

Supreme Court Decision

In February 2020, the Supreme Court of Kings County granted CBS Corporation’s motion to dismiss, which led the plaintiff to appeal the decision. The Supreme Court’s ruling significantly impacted the outcome of the case and determined the next steps for the litigation.

New York Appellate Division’s affirmation

Upon appeal, the New York Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the decision made by the Supreme Court. The appellate division agreed with the lower court’s ruling that CBS Corporation’s motion to dismiss was warranted under Section 3211(a)(7) of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules. The court found that the plaintiff had failed to present sufficient evidence directly linking CBS Corporation to the alleged acts of discrimination and termination.

Background on the plaintiff’s employment

The plaintiff was employed as a sports account executive for WFAN/Yankees Radio Network. Her direct employer was CBS Radio East, LLC, a wholly-owned, indirect subsidiary of CBS Radio, Inc. It is crucial to understand the organizational structure as it determines the level of responsibility CBS Corporation held in relation to the plaintiff’s claims. CBS Radio, Inc. was, in turn, a wholly-owned, indirect subsidiary of CBS Corporation.

Addition of CBS Corporation as a defendant

Later in the lawsuit, the plaintiff chose to include CBS Corporation as a defendant, alongside CBS Radio East, LLC. She alleged that CBS Corporation, as the parent company, was complicit in the sex-based discrimination she endured. This strategic move aimed to hold CBS Corporation accountable for the actions of its subsidiaries and potentially expand the scope of the lawsuit.

The affirmation by the New York Appellate Division of the Supreme Court’s decision to grant CBS Corporation’s motion to dismiss serves as a significant setback for the plaintiff in her employment discrimination lawsuit. The court’s ruling under section 3211(a)(7) of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules highlights the importance of presenting substantial evidence when seeking to hold parent companies accountable for the actions of their subsidiaries. This case emphasizes the challenges plaintiffs may face in establishing direct liability against higher-tier corporations in employment discrimination cases involving complex organizational structures.

Explore more