Opinion
99 Civ. 10850 (LAK)
February 7, 2000
ORDER
Defendant Reebok International Ltd. ("Reebok") moves to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that (1) the Section 1981 claim fails to state a cause of action because plaintiff was an at-will employee, (2) plaintiff has failed to plead a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), (3) certain incidents relied upon in support of the Section 1981 claim are time-barred, and (4) the complaint fails to plead facts sufficient to impose liability on Reebok for the alleged actions of its subsidiary, defendant The Rockport Company, Inc. ("Rockport").
Arguments (1) and (2) are rejected for the same reasons as the identical arguments were rejected when made by Rockport. Hartzog v. Reebok Int'l Ltd., No. 99 Civ. 10850 (LAK), 1999 WL 1216683 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 1999). Argument (4) must be rejected at this pleading stage, as the Court cannot say to the requisite degree of certain that plaintiff might prove no facts under this complaint that would afford a basis for liability of Reebok. See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957). Argument (3) on the other hand is well taken to the extent that plaintiff may not recover damages for events that occurred more than three years prior to the commencement of this action.
Accordingly, the motion to dismiss by Reebok [14-1] is granted to the extent that so much of the complaint as seeks relief for events that occurred before October 27, 1996 is dismissed and denied in all other respects.
SO ORDERED.