OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Defendants Max Mara USA Inc. (“Max Mara”) and Jeffrey Fonseca’s (collectively, “Defendants”) motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). (See Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, dated August 16, 2024, dkt. no. 35 ["12(c) Motion" or "Motion"].)1 Plaintiff Nicole Rios (“Plaintiff”) opposes the Motion. (See Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, dated September 5, 2024, dkt. no. 39 ["Pl. Opp."].) For the reasons stated below, Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED. I. Background2 A. Factual Background On December 5, 2022, Plaintiff began working for Defendant Max Mara as a junior staff accountant. (See Complaint 10, dkt. no. 7 ["Compl."].) That same day, Plaintiff began training for her new role under the supervision of Mr. Jeffery Fonseca, a senior staff accountant. (See Ex. C to the Traub Decl., dkt. no. 37-3 ["Ex. C"] at 1.) Two days after Plaintiff commenced her new job, on December 7, she was working on her computer when Fonseca looked at her and yelled “pornstar.” (See id.; see also Compl. 11.) At the time, Fonseca was standing next to another employee, Mr. Federico Andreoli. (See Ex. C at 1.) The following day, on December 8, Fonseca again yelled “pornstar” while Plaintiff was working at her desk. (See id.; see also Compl. 13.) Plaintiff looked up and saw Andreoli put his hands on Fonseca and shake him, looking upset. (See Ex. C at 1.) On December 9, Fonseca, Plaintiff, and a female colleague were discussing the upcoming workplace holiday party. (See id.; Compl. 14.) Fonseca told Plaintiff he intended to do cocaine at the party and then put his head near Plaintiff’s breasts and pretended to “motorboat” her, shaking his head back and forth. (See Compl. 14.) On or about December 11, Plaintiff reported Fonseca’s behavior directly to Max Mara’s Human Resources (“HR”) manager and HR director. (See id. 15; Ex. C at 1.) Plaintiff was assured that there would be an investigation and that Max Mara’s zero-tolerance policy would be enforced. (See Ex. C at 1.) Afterwards, Plaintiff reported the behavior to the head of her department and Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”), Mr. Christian Macchia, who assured her that he and HR would speak with Fonseca about his conduct. (See id.) In response to Plaintiff’s concerns about continuing to work with Fonseca, Macchia told Plaintiff that she could work in either Accounts Payable or the Treasury department, to which Plaintiff replied that she would prefer the Treasury department. (See id.; see also Compl.
17-18.) On or about December 14, Max Mara announced Macchia’s resignation. (See Ex. C at 2; see also Compl. 19.) Plaintiff’s potential transfer to another department was not discussed after this point. (See Compl. 19.) The same day, Max Mara’s HR manager and HR director held a meeting with Plaintiff to follow up on her report. (See Ex. C at 2.) During the meeting, Plaintiff was told Fonseca was aware of her complaint and wished to apologize, which Plaintiff declined. (See id.) Plaintiff then thanked the HR representatives for following up on the matter. (See id.) Over the next few weeks, Max Mara did not inquire any further into Plaintiff’s report. (See id.) Fonseca continued his role as Plaintiff’s trainer and supervisor. (See id.) On January 10, 2023, Fonseca stated that his old co-worker was becoming Max Mara’s new CFO, said he was “relieved, this [was] a good thing for [him],” and laughed about it to Plaintiff. (Id.) Pursuant to Max Mara’s employee handbook policy for employees dissatisfied with HR investigations, Plaintiff emailed Mr. Cristian Notari, Max Mara’s Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”), to report Fonseca’s behavior. (See id.; Compl. 24; Ex. B to the Traub Decl., dkt. no. 37-2 ["Ex. B"] at 1.) The following day, January 11, Notari responded to Plaintiff’s email by indicating that he understood the HR investigation to be complete and the complaint resolved. (See Ex. B at 1; see also Ex. C at 2.) He encouraged Plaintiff to reach back out to HR with any new complaints. (See Ex. B at 1.) On January 13, Plaintiff sent an email to the entire Max Mara New York office that began as follows: @Cristian Notari maybe someone else in MaxMara will be able to help me since you refuse to. Today 10:37AM (CURRENTLY): Mr. Fonseca just put his hand on my shoulder while I am writing this email. I was going to attach[] supporting documents but will be leaving in response to this. I am leaving and will be sending this email to anyone from Italy MaxMara that [I] can reach in addition to New York State[.] The misogynist behavior MaxMara has made me endure is illegal and I will not be speaking to anyone until a written statement is submitted to myself by HR regarding the behavior I have been subjected to from my colleagues to me during my time working here…. (Ex. C at 1; see also Compl. 27.) Later that same day, Max Mara sent Plaintiff a letter informing her that the company “[took her] email dated January 13, 2023 to Max Mara’s NY Office distribution list as notice of [her] resignation, which we accept.” (Ex. D to the Traub Decl., dkt. no. 37-4 ["Ex. D"]; see also Compl. 30.) B. Procedural History On about February 13, 2023, the New York State Division of Human Rights (NYSDHR) sent Max Mara a copy of the complaint Plaintiff had filed against the company alleging discrimination on the basis of “gender identity or expression, marital status, race/color, [and] sex.” (Ex. E to the Traub Decl., dkt. no. 37-5 ["Ex. E"] at 5.)3 On November 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants in this Court. (See Compl.) On August 16, 2024, Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). (See 12(c) Motion.) II. Legal Standards A. Pleading Standard Under Rule 12(c) The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that “[a]fter the pleadings are closed-but early enough not to delay trial-a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” FED. R. CIV. P. 12(c). Furthermore, the Court of Appeals has held that “[t]he standard for granting a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings is identical to that for granting a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim.” Lively v. WAFRA Inv. Advisory Grp., Inc., 6 F.4th 293, 301 (2d Cir. 2021) (quoting Lynch v. City of New York, 952 F.3d 67, 75 (2d Cir. 2020)). “To survive a Rule 12(c) motion, [the] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Hayden v. Paterson, 594 F.3d 150, 160 (2d Cir. 2010). The Court “accept[s] all factual allegations in the complaint as true and draw[s] all reasonable inferences in [the plaintiff's] favor.” Id. “Specific facts are not necessary; the statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (per curiam) (cleaned up). However, “[j]udgment on the pleadings is not appropriate if there are issues of fact which if proved would defeat recovery, even if the trial court is convinced that the party opposing the motion is unlikely to prevail at trial.” Lively, 6 F.4th at 301 (quoting Dist. No. 1, Pac. Coast Dist., Marine Eng’rs Beneficial Ass’n v. Liberty Mar. Corp., 933 F.3d 751, 761 (D.C. Cir. 2019)). B. Incorporation of Extrinsic Documents In support of their 12(c) Motion, Defendants attach five documents for the Court’s consideration. (See Traub Decl.
