PART 35 - Nymag

.-
olTensive.
Defendant BLirrell's Motion to Dismiss
Defendant Burrell likewise claims that the allegations in the first and second causes of
action fail to indicate that Burrell somehow aided and abetted Centra's failure to provide
Heniiigan with a nondiscriminatory working environment, or any other allegations of
discriminatory conduct against her by Burrell for that matter. The few alleged instances hardly
evidence "discriminatory mis-treatment" by Burrell. The complaint does not allege lhal Burrell
-~
7- 1
subjected Hennigan to a discnniinaKGwork eGiionmeii~
or thaf-C%%fra faile-Tt6provicE --
Hennigan with a nondiscriminatory work environment, or explain how Burrell allegedly aided
and abetted same. Thus, the first and second causes of action against Burrell, should be
dismissed.
__ -
Further, Burrell argues, plaintiffs' claim in their third and fourth causes ol- action that
Burrell took adverse employment actions against them should be dismissed, for the reasons noted
by the Centro Defendants. Burrell also adds that the alleged conduct of B~~rrell, and instances of
nasty looks, sneers and comments, her rolling of the eyes, and banging of a pan hardly cvideiice
of discriminatory conduct.
Plaintiffs have failed to adequately allege that the circumstances give rise to an inference
of discrimination by Burrell. Plaintiffs have not alleged any adverse employment actions by
Burrell. Moreover, with respect to Hennigan, the few alleged cowments by Burrcll hardly
suffice. Beyond this, plaintiffs' conclusory allegations regarding the difference in treatment
between the male employees and plaintiffs because of plaintiffs' gender is also insufficient.
Further, Hennigan's hostile work environment claims in the fifth and sixth causes of
9
-.