d on individual liability (see e.g. Springs v City of N.Y., 2019 WL 1429567, *15 n 4, *16 [SD NY Mar. 28, 2019, No. 17 Civ. 451 (AJN)] ["The Court is cognizant that Plaintiff has not brought a NYCHRL discrimination claim against any of the individual defendants"]; Baldwin v Bank of America, NA, 42 Misc.3d 1203[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 52194[U], *8 [Sup Ct, Kings County 2013] ["Plaintiff does not allege that defendant Perez is directly liable under City Human Rights (Law) § 8-107 (1) (a)"]), or brought a claim against an individual with supervisory or managerial control over the plaintiff (see Quintero v Angels of the World, Inc., 2021 WL 4464123, *10 [ED NY, Sep. 10, 2021, 19 Civ. 6126 (DG)] [individual defendant "harasser" managed operations of employer and controlled plaintiff's work schedule]; Antoine v Brooklyn Maids 26, Inc., 489 F.Supp.3d 68, 78 [ED NY 2020] [individual defendant "harasser" was the chief executive officer of plaintiff's employer and her supervisor]; Setty v Synergy Fitness, 2018 WL 8415414, *1 [ED NY Dec. 18, 2018, 17 Civ. 06504 (NGG/SMG)] [individual defendant "harasser" was plaintiff's former manager]; Dillon v Ned Management, Inc., 85 F.Supp.3d 639 [ED NY 2015] [individual defendants were plaintiff's boss, "immediate supervisor," the "owner of the company," and the "bookkeeper" with authority to dock plaintiff's pay]; Baldwin, 2013 NY Slip Op 52194[U], *2 [individual defendant was plaintiff's former supervisor]; Malena v Victoria's Secret Direct, LLC, 886 F.Supp.2d 349, 366 [SD NY 2012] [individual defendant was plaintiff's direct boss "and hence supervised her schedule and conditions of employment" and "played a part in setting Plaintiff's salary"]; Nelson v HSBC Bank USA, 41 A.D.3d 445, 446 [2d Dept 2007] [individual defendants were plaintiffs' supervisors]). Of course, as explained, we agree with the dissent that section 8-107 (1) (a) creates individual liability for employees-but only those employees who, as in the above-cited cases, have a role in

Plaintiff's declaration describing the symptoms she suffered after the sexual assault, coupled with her treatment records and letters from mental-health providers, amply support her request for an award of “garden-variety” emotional distress damages in the amount of $10,000. See, e.g., Setty v. Synergy Fitness, No. 17-CV-6504 (NGG) (SMG), 2019 WL 1292431, at *2, *5 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2019) (awarding $25,000 to two plaintiffs and $35,000 to a third plaintiff for “garden-variety” emotional distress where plaintiffs had been subjected to unwanted sexual comments and inappropriate touching); Manson v. Friedberg, No. 08-CV-3890 (RO), 2013 WL 2896971, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. June 13, 2013) (awarding $10,000 to plaintiff based on “vague and conclusory” allegations of low self-esteem where plaintiff also lacked any physical manifestations of emotional distress); Francis v. City of New York, No. 15-CV-7997 (VSB) (KHP), 2019 WL 8918743, at *8-9 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 12, 2019) report and recommendation adopted by, 2020 WL 2792995 (S.D.N.Y. May 29, 2020) (awarding $10,000 for a “garden variety” emotional distress claim based on “little evidence”); Pelgrift v. 355 W. 41st Tavern, Inc., No. 14-CV-8934 (AJN), 2018 WL 4735705, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2018) (granting $20,000 in emotional distr

The Court finds that the emotional distress the described in the Claimants' declarations support compensatory damage awards of $35,000 per Claimant. See Setty v. Fitness, No. 17-CV-06504 (NGG) (SMG), 2018 WL 8415414, at *18 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2018), report and recommendation adopted sub nom., No. 17-CV-6504 (NGG) (SMG), 2019 WL 1292431 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2019) (awarding $25,000 to $35,000 to Claimants for a hostile work environment that caused emotional distress). The Court notes this $35,000 is less than the $50,000 requested for compensatory damages requested per Claimant by Plaintiff.

Here, the Court finds that the details contained in Plaintiff's declaration are sufficient to support her request for $25,000 for her garden variety damages and awards her emotional distress damages in that amount. See, e.g., Setty v. Synergy Fitness, No. 17-cv-6504, 2019 WL 1292431, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2019) (adopting magistrate judge's recommendations of garden variety emotional distress damage awards of $35,000 for one of three plaintiffs and $25,000 to each additional plaintiff); Pelgrift v. 355 W. 41st Tavern, Inc., No. 14-cv-8934, 2018 WL 4735705, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2018) (awarding one of three default-judgment-seeking plaintiffs $20,000 in “garden variety” emotional distress damages and $40,000 to each additional plaintiff). Plaintiff does not seek an award of attorney's fees or costs pursuant to the NYLL.

all allow for recovery of emotional distress damages. See, e.g., Setty v. Synergy Fitness, No. 17-CV-6504 (NGG) (SMG), 2019 WL 1292431, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2019). The Second Circuit categorizes emotional distress damages as one of the following: garden variety, significant, or egregious.

“As courts have frequently noted, ‘there appears to be a ‘spectrum' or ‘continuum' of damage awards for emotional distress,' ranging from ‘$5,000 to more than $100,000, representing ‘garden-variety,' ‘significant' and ‘egregious' emotional distress claims.'” Setty v. Fitness, No. 17-CV-06504 (NGG) (SMG), 2018 WL 8415414, at *16 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2018), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Setty v. Synergy Fitness, No. 17-CV-6504 (NGG) (SMG), 2019 WL 1292431 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2019) (quoting Rainone v. Potter, 388 F.Supp.2d 120, 122 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (citation omitted)). “This three-tiered approach has been used to calculate damages recoverable on a default judgment . . . .” Id.

Id. (first citing Wiercinski v. Mangia 57, Inc. , 787 F.3d 106, 113 (2d Cir. 2015) ; and then citing Summa , 708 F.3d at 124 ); see alsoAntoine , 489 F. Supp. 3d at 87 ("An employer ... can be held vicariously liable under Title VII for the unlawful conduct of supervisors with the capacity to take ‘tangible employment actions.’ " (quoting Setty v. Fitness , No. 17-CV-6504, 2018 WL 8415414, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2018), report and recommendation adopted sub nom.,Setty v. Synergy Fitness , 2019 WL 1292431 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2019) )). "[A]n employee is a supervisor only ‘when the employer has empowered that employee to take tangible employment actions against the victim, i.e. , to effect a "significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits." ’ " Bentley , 935 F.3d at 91 (quoting Vance v. Ball State University , 570 U.S. 421, 431, 133 S.Ct. 2434, 186 L.Ed.2d 565 (2013) ).

I therefore reject plaintiffs' objections to Judge Reyes' recommendation in this case and adopt the R. & R. in full. My decision aligns with those of several other courts that have declined to revise magistrate judges' calculations of attorneys' fees based on biographical information that was first supplied in an objection to the R. & R. See, e.g., Jianhui Hu v. 226 Wild Ginger, No. 17-CV-10161, 2020 WL 4383501, *4 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 2020); Ye Hong v. 7 Express Rest. Corp., No. 17-CV-2174, 2019 WL 1429584, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2019); Setty v. Synergy Fitness, No. 17-CV-6504, 2019 WL 1292431, at *6 n.6 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2019); Coley v. City of New York, No. 15-CV-5132, 2017 WL 1162177, at *2-3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2017); Mister Softee, Inc. v. Konstantakakos, No. 15-CV-4770, 2016 WL 4250314, at *1-2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2016). CONCLUSION

Setty v. Fitness, No. 17-CV-6504, 2018 WL 8415414, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2018) (citing Mihalik, 715 F.3d at 114), R. & R. adopted sub nom. Setty v. Synergy Fitness, 2019 WL 1292431 (E.D.N.Y. March 21, 2019). Nonetheless, a quid pro quo claim is actionable under the NYCHRL as long as the plaintiff has received unequal treatment based on her gender.