Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Dey v. Innodata, Inc.

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

September 13, 2019

ANINDO DEY, Plaintiff,
v.
INNODATA INC., Defendant.

          OPINION

          MICHAEL A. HAMMER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         This matter is presently before this Court on Defendant's, Innodata Inc. (“Defendant”), motion to amend its Answer to the Complaint. See Defendant's Motion to Amend the Answer, May 28, 2019, D.E. 71. This Court has considered the matter without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court will grant Defendant's motion to amend its Answer to the Complaint.

         II. BACKGROUND

         The following background is derived from the allegations of the Complaint. Plaintiff, Anindo Dey (“Plaintiff”), was originally employed with Defendant[1] as a Vice President of Business Development in Noida, India. Compl., July 28, 2017, D.E. 1, at ¶ 11. Plaintiff contends that at the request of Jack Abuhoff (“Mr. Abuhoff”), Defendant's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, he moved to the United States. Id. Plaintiff alleges that in February 2016, Defendant sponsored him to work in the United States. Id. ¶ 13. Plaintiff then moved to the United States and worked in the field and out of his home office in Illinois. Id. Plaintiff reported to Defendant's headquarters in Hackensack, New Jersey. Id.

         Throughout Plaintiff's employment, Plaintiff reported to Lisa Indovino (“Ms. Indovino”), Defendant's Senior Vice President, Digital Data Solutions. Id. at ¶ 15. Plaintiff contends that he was subject to a hostile work environment and a work culture of discrimination based on his Asian ethnicity and Indian Origin. Id. at ¶¶ 16-17. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that Ms. Indovino subjected him to “a campaign of harassment, an intimidating and threatening work environment, and verbal and racial abuse upon his relocation to the United States.” Id. at ¶ 18.

         Plaintiff submits that in an email dated September 12, 2016, he reported Ms. Indovino's behavior to Mr. Abuhoff. Id. at ¶ 19. According to Plaintiff, the September 12, 2016, email specifically recounted “instances wherein Indovino's discriminatory and harassing nature were directed towards him, including but not limited to, berating him and screaming at him seemingly for most actions he took.” Id. at ¶ 20. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to take “any action to address the concerns of discrimination raised by [him] in his September 12, 2016, email to Abuhoff.” Id. at ¶ 30. Plaintiff further alleges that “[a]s a direct and proximate result of the stress inflicted upon him by Indovino, [he] suffered a silent heart attack sometime in September of 2016.” Id. at ¶ 29.

         On November 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Chicago District Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Right Act. Id. at ¶ 31. Plaintiff represents that the following day, November 9, 2016, he underwent emergency heart surgery “as a result of the stress induced heart attack.” Id. at ¶ 33. Plaintiff contends that upon returning to work, Ms. Indovino “continued her harassment, increased scrutiny and changing in her performance appraisal of [Plaintiff].” Id. at ¶ 35. On November 30, 2016, the EEOC Office of Chicago transferred the Charge to the EEOC Office in New Jersey. Id. at ¶ 28. Plaintiff submits that two days after becoming aware of his Charge of Discrimination, Defendant terminated his employment. Id. at ¶ 39.

         On May 2, 2017, the EEOC issued Plaintiff a Right to Sue Letter. Id. at ¶ 3. On July 28, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Illinois Humans Rights Act, and the Illinois Whistleblower Act. See generally Compl., D.E. 1, at ¶¶ 41-64, ¶¶ 71- 86. Plaintiff's Complaint also sets forth counts for retaliatory discharge. Id. at ¶¶ 65-70.

         On November 1, 2017, Defendant filed an Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint, setting forth sixteen affirmative defenses and no counterclaims. See generally Answer, November 1, 2017, D.E. 28.

         On January 22, 2018, this matter was transferred to the United District Court for the District of New Jersey. See Opinion and Order, January 22, 2018, D.E. 35. On February 28, 2019, Defendant filed a motion for leave to file an amended Answer. See Def. Motion for Leave to Amend Answer, February 28, 2019, D.E. 65. On May 20, 2019, the Court denied Defendant's motion without prejudice to the right to refile such a motion that contained a red-lined version of the proposed amended pleading. See Order, May 20, 2019, D.E. 68.[2]

         On May 28, 2019, Defendant filed a renewed motion for leave to file an amended Answer, seeking to add an affirmative defense and counterclaims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and promissory estoppel. Proposed Amended Answer, May 28, 2019, D.E. 71-1, at pp. 15-18. On June 13, 2019, Plaintiff opposed Defendant's motion. Pl. Opposition to Def.'s Motion, June 13, 2019, D.E. 73. On June 19, 2019, Defendant replied to Plaintiff's opposition. Def. Reply, June 19, 2019, D.E. 74.

         III. ANALYSIS

         Defendant's Proposed Amended Answer alleges that on February 19, 2016, Plaintiff executed a Promissory Note (the “Note”) to Defendant. Proposed Amended Answer, May 28, 2019, D.E. 71-1, at p. 15, ¶ 1. According to the Note's terms, Plaintiff was to receive $6, 250.00, which would be repaid with interest at 3.5% per annum on the unpaid balance. Id. at ¶¶ 2-3. Beginning in March 2016, Plaintiff was to pay Defendant forty-eight equal installments of $135.00 that were “payable twice monthly as an automatic salary deduction from each period.” Id. at ΒΆ 4. The Note provided Defendant the option to make the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.