Francis v Eisenbeiss

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Francis v Eisenbeiss 2012 NY Slip Op 30208(U) January 23, 2012 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: 102777/11 Judge: Emily Jane Goodman Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. INE [* 1] - NEW YORK COUNTY SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE PRESENT: PART Index Number : 102777/2011 INDEX N O . FRANCIS, JOYCE E. MOTION DATE VS. MOTION EISENBEISS, CHRISTIAN sm. NO. MOTION CAL. NO. SEQUENCE NUMBER : 001 - DlSM ACTION/INCONVENIENT FORUM I thls motion to/for Notlce of Motion/ Order to Show Lause - ATTIaavIm - exhibits .. z v z 0 3 K Anawering Affldavits ... - Exhiblts Replying Affidavits Cross-Motion: 0 Yes No Upon the foregoing papers, It I ordered that thls motion s n & Check one: FINAL DISPOSITION Check if appropriate: 0 DO NOT POST SUBMIT ORDER/ JUDG. NON-FINAL DISPOSITION 0 REFERENCE 0 SETTLE ORDER/ JUDG. [* 2] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 17 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - -x- - _ _ _ - - --JOYCE E. FRANCIS, Plaintiff, Index No.: 102777/11 -againstDECISION FILED & ORDE CHRISTIAN EISENBEISS and CRE CAPITAL LLC, Emily Jane Goodman, J.: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE Plaintiff Joyce E. Francis (Francis) sues defendants Christian Eisenbeias (Eisenbeiss) and CRE Capital LLC. (CRE Capital) (together, Defendants) for retaliatory firing and race and age discrimination under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) (29 USC 26171, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) ( 4 2 USC 12111) , USC 630), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)(29 the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USC 1983), and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL)(NY Executive Law 5 292). Defendanta move to diamiBa on the grounds of documentary evidence (CPLR 3211[a][1]) and that the complaint fails t state valid o causes of action (CPLR 3211[a] [71). The motion i a decided as follows. Ms. Francis is an African-American woman over the age of fifty (Complaint, 7 90). In October 2006, she was hired by Eisenbeiss; her duties included maintaining Eisenbeiss's house in Pine Plains, New York and running errands, among other things. In 2007, Eisenbeisa formed CRE Capital, and began paying Ms. [* 3] Francis from the company funds (she was listed ag an employee of CRE Capital on its NY-45-MN quarterly reports [ a t t a c h e d to Eisenbeiss Aff., Ex. B]). According to Eisenbeiss, CRE Capital never had more than 3 employees (Eiaenbeiss Aff., In July 2008, 7 3). Ms. Francis alleges that, while at work, she fell and suffered an injury. She asked for time to recover, and was granted it, with pay (Complaint, 1 18-19). During that time, CRE Capital hired Dale Boyles (Boyles), a younger Caucasian woman, to take over the housekeeping duties at the Pine Plains residence. Ma. Francis avers that after her injury, she was unable to use her hand, and could not do all the work required of her position (Francis Aff. 7 Francis was paid until May 22, 10, attached to Barran Aff, Ex. A ) . 2009, when she was terminated. Boyles continued to work for CRE Capital. Ms. Francis filed a complaint of discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commislsion (EEOC), which granted her a right to sue. This action followed. Defendants argue that 42 USC 1983 is inapplicable becauae neither Eisenbeiss or CRE Capital are state actors, nor did they act under color of law (see Ciambriello v. County of Nassau, 292 F3d 307, 323 C i r 20021). Defendants are not state actors, nor is it alleged that, in terminating M a . Francis, the Defendants acted under the color of law. Next, Defendants argue that they are.not 'employers" 2 [* 4] under the statutes listed in the complaint. Under the majority of the statutes raised here, Defendants are correct. An entity must employ at least 15 workers to qualify as an \\employer under the ADA (42 USC 12111[5] [ A I ) , 20 under the ADEA (29 USC 630[bl) , and 50 under the FMLA (29 USC 2611[4] [A] [I]). Ma. Francis argues that Eisenbeiss should be considered as an employer under each of these statutes because he either owns or is involved in other companies--not parties here--that may have enough workers to satisfy the statutory requirements, and that CRE C a p i t a l actually employs over 100 people (Francis Aff., attached to Barran Aff., EX. A , 7 2 ) . This argument ia unpersuasive. There is no evidence that CRE Capital employed 100 people, and this allegation is flatly contradicted by documentary evidence provided by Eisenbeiss (Eisenbeiss Aff., Ex. A ) (Caniglia v Chicago Tribune-New York News Syndicate Inc., 2 0 4 AD2d 2 3 3 , 2 3 3 34 [lat Dept 19941 . Similarly, beyond Eisenbeiaa s alleged involvement, there is no connection alleged between CRE Capital and the several companies listed in opposition to the motion, such that they should be considered one company. Defendants also argue that the NYSHRL cannot apply. Under the NYSHRL, \\[t]heterm employer does not include any employer with fewer than four persona in hia or her employ ,..,/ (NY Executive Law § 292151). Eisenbeiaa argues t h a t he never emeloyed more than three workers at CRE Capital. 3 In support, he [* 5] attaches his NYS-45-MN quarterly combined wage report forms from 2007-2009 (Eisenbeiss Aff., Ex. A). The 4 4 quarterly report for 2008 lists four employees, Francis and three others, whose names are redacted. Accordingly, the documentary evidence does not establish as a matter of law that CRE Capital did not employ four or more employees. Thus, Executive Law 5 292(5) does not preclude MS. Francis from alleging causes of action brought under the NYSHRL. Finally, Defendants argue that Me. Francis does not have standing to bring an action under the NYSHRL because she is an exempted domestic worker.' Domestic Worker is defined in the New York Labor Law as 'a person employed in a home or residence ' for the purpose of caring for a child, serving as a companion to a sick, convalescing or elderly person, housekeeping or for any other domestic service purpoae" (New York Labor Law § 2 [16]1 . However, Ms. Francis has stated that, beyond housekeeping, her duties included mail collection for CRE Capital, payment of bills for CRE Capital, banking, invoice reviews, and o t h e r duties. These actions, plus the fact that she was employed by a corporatiw, establishes that Ms. Frances was n o t a domestic worker as defined by the Labbr Law. Accordingly, Ms. Francis is a protected worker under the NYSHRL and has alleged valid causes The new legislation found in NYSHRL 296(b), which provides domestic workers with cextain rights under the NYSHRL, was not implemented at the time of Ms. Francis's termination. 4 [* 6] of action under that In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion to dismiss of the defendants Christian Eisenbeiss and CRE Capital, LLC. is granted to t h e extent that the first, second, third, fourth, sixth, seventh and eighth causes of action are dismissed; the fifth and ninth causes of action, brought under the NYSHRL, survive; and it is further ORDERED that the defendants are directed to serve an answer to the complaint within 20 daya after service of a copy Of this order with notice of entry; and it is further ORDERED that counsel are directed to appear for a preliminary conference in Room 422, 60 Centre Street, on March 15, 2012, at 1 O : O O AM. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION OF THE COURT n Dated: &j$bL&, FILED 2012 V Enter : N ,. . -ERKS OFFICE EMILY% k UOODMAN N If, in fact, Ms. Francis was a domestic worker only, but was employed by defendants' financial company, that is a matter for the Internal Revenue Service and the Securities Exchange Commission. 5

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.