Brunson-Bedi v. State of New York (Hudson Valley DDSO)

OPINION & ORDER Plaintiff Vivienne A. Brunson-Bedi (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action on or about December 15, 2015 alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000 et. seq. (“Title VII”), and the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYHRL”) against the State of New York, Hudson Valley DDSO (“HVDDSO” or the “State”), Local 412 of the Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO (“CSEA”), and Basil Townsend (“Townsend”) (collectively “Defendants”) for sexual harassment, a hostile work environment, discrimination, and retaliation. (See Complaint (“Compl.”) (ECF No. 1),

10-11.)Now pending before the Court are four motions: (1) Plaintiff’s motion to amend the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a); (2) Defendant HVDDSO’s cross-motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter and personal jurisdiction, insufficient service of process, and failure to state a cause of action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure I 2(b)(1), 12(b)(2), 12(b)(5), and 12(b)(6), respectively; (3) Defendant CSEA’s motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process and failure to state a cause of action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) and 12(b)(6), respectively; and (4) Defendant Townsend’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action and for sovereign immunity pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), respectively. (See Plaintiff’s Affirmation in Support of Motion to Amend (“Plf. Br.”) (ECF No. 58), 1; Defendant HVDDSO’s Brief in Support of the Motion to Dismiss (“State Br.”) (ECF No. 37), at 1; Defendant CSEA’s Brief in Support of the Motion to Dismiss (“CSEA Br.”) (ECF No. 41), at 1-2; Defendant Townsend’s Motion to Dismiss (“Townsend Mot.”) (ECF No. 31), at 1-2.) For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to amend is DENIED, Defendants HVDDSO and CSEA’s cross-motions to dismiss are GRANTED, and Defendant Townsend’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED.FACTUAL BACKGROUNDPlaintiff’s Complaint asserts violations of Title VII and the NYHRL for alleged employment discrimination in the form of sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and retaliation. (See Compl.