DECISION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation (“the R&R”) dated December 18, 2017 issued by Magistrate Judge H. Kenneth Schroeder, Jr. This case was transferred to the undersigned, the Honorable Michael A. Telesca by Order dated May 20, 2019. For the reasons discussed herein, the Court adopts the R&R in full.FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORYThe Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“the EEOC”) commenced this action pursuant to Title VII of the civil Rights Act, 42. U.S.C. §2000e et seq., against Frontier Hot-Drip Galvanizing, Inc. (“Frontier”) on behalf of two black employees along with others similarly aggrieved who were subjected to racial and national origin discrimination and a hostile work environment. The complaint alleges that the employees affected were subjected to racial slurs uttered by co-workers and supervisors along with racist graffiti which remained in the workplace and after complaining about their work conditions to Frontier and the EEOC, the employees were terminated. (Dkt. No. 1)Frontier answered the complaint generally denying the allegations, alleging that the employees were terminated for just cause and not in retaliation for their complaints of discrimination. Frontier asserted 25 affirmative defenses in its answer. (Dkt. No. 8.)Frontier also commenced a third-party action against Coastal Staffing Services of New York (“Coastal Staffing”) alleging that Coastal Staffing breached its contract to “continue to provide the best quality services in providing staff to Frontier,” and engaged in negligent conduct by failing to properly train and/or screen staff to exclude individuals who would engage in the alleged misconduct. Frontier’s third party complaint seeks contractual indemnification, along with common law indemnification and damages resulting from Coastal Staff’s breach of contract (Dkt. No. 9). The essence of the agreement between Frontier and Coastal Staffing states that Coastal Staffing would provide temporary employees to Frontier for which, and if satisfactory, Frontier would pay Coastal Staffing at a set rate. (Dkt. No. 9-3, p. 1) In a subsequent letter setting forth increased rates, Coastal expressed appreciation to Frontier “for being a loyal and valued customer” and assured Frontier that it would “continue to provide you with the best quality service.” (Dkt. No. 9-3, p. 2)Frontier alleges that Coastal Staffing knew or should have known that some or all of its employees placed at Frontier had a history of engaging in inappropriate and/or unlawful discriminatory harassment and were likely to engage in similar conduct while working at Frontier. (Dkt. No. 25-3 20) Frontier’s proposed amended complaint asserts two causes of action: (1) contribution pursuant to Article 14 of New York’s Civil Practice Lw and Rules based upon Coastal Staffing’s status as a joint employer with Frontier. (Dkt. No. 25-3,
