DECISION & ORDER On November 17, 2021, the pro se plaintiff, Victoria Rolley-Radford, commenced this action under 42 U.S.C. §§1981-1983, 42 U.S.C. §1985, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and New York State law. Docket Item1. She alleges that the defendants — Modern Disposal Services, Inc. (“Modern Disposal”), and two Modern Disposal employees, Jerry Nole and Joe Coppola1 — discriminated against her during her employment with Modern Disposal and retaliated against her for objecting to that discrimination. See id. On March 14, 2022, the defendants moved to dismiss most of Rolley-Radford’s claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Docket Item 3. On April 4, 2022, Rolley-Radford responded to the motion to dismiss, Docket Item 6, and on April 19, 2022, the defendants replied, Docket Item 7. For the reasons that follow, the defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part, and the remainder of the defendants’ motion will be granted unless Rolley-Radford amends her complaint to correct the deficiencies noted below. FACTUAL BACKGROUND2 Rolley-Radford “is an African-American woman.” Docket Item 1 at 10. She “began working for [Modern Disposal] in November of 2018 as a truck driver.” Id. at 17. Rolley-Radford “enjoyed a good working relationship with management, performed her job without incident, and received positive job performance reviews from November of 2018 until February of 2021.” Id. at 18. On February 18, 2021, Rolley-Radford “was approached by” Nole, a “senior management employee” at Modern Disposal and Rolley-Radford’s supervisor, about “sexual favors” and “sexual advances.” Id. at
15, 19. More specifically, Nole offered to “eliminat[e] a fictitious complaint about [Rolley-Radford's] performance in exchange for sexual favors.” Id. at 19. He “also cautioned [Rolley-Radford] that her advancement with the company would be [] hampered if she did not succumb to his sexual advances.” Id. Rolley-Radford “refused to comply with…Nole’s advances” and instead “reported his outrageous conduct to senior management of [Modern Disposal], including” Coppola. Id. at 20. About four months later, Rolley-Radford “was suspended from her employment…without cause or notice.” Id. at 21. Rolley — Radford says that this suspension was “retaliation [for] her refusal to comply with the sexual demands of [] Nole[,] which started in February of 2021 and continued until her suspension.” Id. Four days after she was suspended, Rolley-Radford was fired from Modern Disposal “after having served [Modern Disposal with] a copy and notice of her complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [("EEOC")].” Id. at 22. LEGAL PRINCIPLES “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “[A]lthough ‘a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint,’ that tenet ‘is inapplicable to legal conclusions,’ and ‘threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.’” Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). DISCUSSION Rolley-Radford brings claims under 42 U.S.C. §1981, 42 U.S.C. §1982, 42 U.S.C. §1983, 42 U.S.C. §1985, Title VII, and the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), as well as claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and breach of contract. Docket Item 1 at
