Calenzo v. Waste Management, Inc. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
MARY-ROSE F. CALENZO,
Plaintiff,
v. 	1:24-cv-01499 (AMN/PJE)
WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
APPEARANCES:
MARY-ROSE F. CALENZO
553 Coyote Circle
Midway Park, North Carolina 28544
Plaintiff pro se
Hon. Anne M. Nardacci, United States District Judge:
ORDER
I. 	INTRODUCTION
On December 10, 2024, Plaintiff pro se Mary-Rose F. Calenzo, commenced this action
against her former employer, Waste Management, Inc. (“Waste Management”), and her former
coworkers, James Dennis, Michael Glass, Raymond Bender, and Joseph Mazzelli (collectively,
the “Individual Defendants”), alleging claims of discrimination and related state law claims. See
Dkt. No. 1 (“Complaint”).
This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paul J. Evangelista, who
reviewed the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), and on August 26, 2025, recommended
that (i) Plaintiff’s Title VII claims against the Individual Defendants be dismissed with prejudice;
(ii) Plaintiff’s Title VII claim against Waste Management be permitted to proceed; (iii) Plaintiff’s
unlawful termination, retaliation, and breach of contract claims against Waste Management be
Case 1:24-cv-01499-AMN-PJE Document 14 Filed 12/22/25 Page 1 of 9

2
dismissed without prejudice; and (iv) Plaintiff’s defamation claim against Defendants Dennis and
Glass be dismissed without prejudice. 	See Dkt. No. 5 at 31-32.1 Magistrate Judge Evangelista
also recommended that Plaintiff be allowed to amend her Complaint to raise claims of
discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”) as against the
Individual Defendants. 	Id. at 32. 	On September 22, 2025, the Court adopted the Report-
Recommendation in its entirety. Dkt. No. 6.
On October 16, 2025, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. Dkt. No. 8. In her Amended
Complaint, Plaintiff adds employees Jess Winowski and Bryan Crom as Defendants, and raises
claims under the NYSHRL for gender discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment.
See id. at 2-4.2 Plaintiff also makes additional allegations in support of her claims, including, inter
alia, that Plaintiff (i) was denied five promotions which were awarded to less qualified male
employees, (ii) had unequal access to Company equipment, (iii) was forced to undertake unsafe
practices, (iv) faced disciplinary action based on false statements made about her conduct, (v)
experienced verbal harassment and degrading treatment by supervisors, and (vi) was “ultimately
terminated in retaliation for raising concerns about discriminatory treatment and unsafe practices.”
1 Citations to court documents utilize the pagination generated by CM/ECF, the Court’s electronic
filing system.
2 In light of the special solicitude that is accorded to pro se litigants, see Ruotolo v. I.R.S., 28 F.3d
6, 8 (2d Cir. 1994), the Court reads Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint to also assert gender
discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII. “[T]he failure in a complaint to cite a statute,
or to cite the correct one, in no way affects the merits of a claim.” McLeod v. Jewish Guild for the
Blind, 864 F.3d 154, 158 (2d Cir. 2017) (quoting Albert v. Carovano, 851 F.2d 561, 571 n.3 (2d
Cir. 1988) (en banc)) (vacating district court’s determination that plaintiff asserted discrimination
claims only under Title VII, instead of liberally construing the complaint to also assert NYSHRL
and New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”) claims). “Rather, factual allegations alone
are what matters.” Id. (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted); see also Belizaire v. RAV
Investigative & Sec. Servs. Ltd., 61 F. Supp. 3d 336, 344 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (“In evaluating a pro se
complaint, a court is not limited to the causes of action specified by the plaintiff, but instead must
construe it liberally, . . . and must construe it to raise the strongest claims it suggests[.]”) (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted).
Case 1:24-cv-01499-AMN-PJE Document 14 Filed 12/22/25 Page 2 of 9

3
Id. 	Plaintiff also submitted a statement from Mr. Antonio Balls-Suarez, a former employee at
Waste Management, to support her assertions. See Dkt. No. 9 at 1.
This matter was again referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paul J. Evangelista, who
reviewed the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), and on December 1, 2025, recommended
that the following claims be dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend: (i) Plaintiff’s
Title VII gender discrimination claims against Defendants Winowski and Crom; (ii) Plaintiff’s
NYSHRL gender discrimination claims against Defendants Glass, Bender, Mazzelli, Winowski,
and Crom; and (iii) Plaintiff’s state law claims for defamation and breach of contract. Dkt. No. 11
at 22 (“Report-Recommendation”). 	Magistrate Judge Evangelista also recommended that the
following claims be permitted to proceed: (i) Plaintiff’s gender discrimination and retaliation
claims under Title VII and the NYSHRL against Waste Management; (ii) Plaintiff’s gender
discrimination claim under the NYSHRL against Defendant Dennis; (iii) Plaintiff’s hostile work
environment claim under the NYSHRL against Waste Management; and (iv) Plaintiff’s claims
against Defendants Dennis and Glass for aiding and abetting an abusive work environment under
the NYSHRL. 	Id. at 23. 	Magistrate Judge Evangelista advised that pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1), the Parties had fourteen days within which to file written objections and that failure
to object to the Report-Recommendation within fourteen days would preclude appellate review.
Id. Plaintiff submitted that she had no objections to the Report-Recommendation. See Dkt. No.
12 at 1.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its
entirety.
Case 1:24-cv-01499-AMN-PJE Document 14 Filed 12/22/25 Page 3 of 9

4
II. 	STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court reviews de novo those portions of a magistrate judge’s report-recommendation
that have been properly preserved with a specific objection. Petersen v. Astrue, 2 F. Supp. 3d 223,
228 (N.D.N.Y. 2012); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 	If no specific objections have been filed, this
Court reviews a magistrate judge’s report-recommendation for clear error. 	See Petersen, 2 F.
Supp. 3d at 228 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 1983 Addition). “When
performing such a ‘clear error’ review, ‘the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error
on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.’” Dezarea W. v. Comm’r of Soc.
Sec., No. 21-cv-1138, 2023 WL 2552452, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2023) (quoting Canady v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 17-cv-367, 2017 WL 5484663, at *1 n.1 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2017)).
“[I]n a pro se case, the court must view the submissions by a more lenient standard than
that accorded to ‘formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Govan v. Campbell, 289 F. Supp. 2d 289,
295 (N.D.N.Y. 2003) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)) (additional citations
omitted). 	“A complaint filed pro se “must be construed liberally with ‘special solicitude’ and
interpreted to raise the strongest claims that it suggests.” Hogan v. Fischer, 738 F.3d 509, 515 (2d
Cir. 2013) (quoting Hill v. Curcione, 657 F.3d 116, 122 (2d Cir. 2011)). The Second Circuit has
held that courts are obligated to “make reasonable allowances to protect pro se litigants” from
inadvertently forfeiting legal rights merely because they lack a legal education. 	Govan, 289 F.
Supp. 2d at 295 (quoting Traguth v. Zuck, 710 F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 1983)). “This is particularly
so when the pro se plaintiff alleges that her civil rights have been violated.” Sealed Plaintiff v.
Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185, 191 (2d Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). After appropriate review,
“the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations
made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Case 1:24-cv-01499-AMN-PJE Document 14 Filed 12/22/25 Page 4 of 9

5
III. 	DISCUSSION
Because Plaintiff has not filed any objections to the Report-Recommendation, the Court
reviews the Report-Recommendation for clear error.
First, Magistrate Judge Evangelista recommended that Plaintiff’s Title VII claims against
Defendants Winowski and Crom be dismissed with prejudice because “individuals are not subject
to liability under Title VII.” Dkt. No. 11 at 8-9 (quoting Pitter v. Target Corp., No. 20-cv-183,
2020 WL 8474858, at *5 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 2020) (citation omitted)).
Second, Magistrate Judge Evangelista recommended that Plaintiff’s gender discrimination
claims under the NYSHRL as against Defendants Glass, Bender, Mazzelli, Winowski, and Crom
be dismissed with prejudice. 	Id. at 10. 	Magistrate Judge Evangelista found that Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint fails to indicate whether any of these Defendants have the authority to
independently hire or fire personnel. Id. (citing Zheng, v. Gen. Elec. Co., No. 15-cv-1232, 2015
WL 7421961, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 26, 2015) (“Under the NYSHRL, individual liability attaches
where an employee . . . [has] the authority to hire or fire people.”) (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted), report and recommendation adopted, 2015 WL 7430046 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 20,
2015)); see also Mallett v. Town of Huntington, No. 24-cv-5463, 2025 WL 2630387, at *7
(E.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2025) (denying leave to amend complaint when further amendment “is
unlikely to be productive”) (quoting Yerdon v. Henry, 91 F.3d 370, 378 (2d Cir. 1996)).
Third, Magistrate Judge Evangelista recommended that Plaintiff’s breach of contract and
defamation claims be deemed abandoned because the Amended Complaint does not (i) reallege
breach of contract or defamation claims against any Defendant, (ii) argue whether equitable tolling
applies such that any alleged defamation claim is not barred by the statute of limitations, or (iii)
provide a copy of the contract or additional details about the contract terms alleged to have been
Case 1:24-cv-01499-AMN-PJE Document 14 Filed 12/22/25 Page 5 of 9

6
breached. Dkt. No. 11 at 20-21 (citing, inter alia, Dkt. No. 6 at 5-6; Zheng v. Gen. Elec. Co., No.
15-cv-1232, 2016 WL 11477390, at *5 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2016), report and recommendation
adopted sub nom., 2016 WL 2636297 (N.D.N.Y. May 9, 2016)); see also Porter v. Gummerson,
No. 04-cv-988, 2007 WL 446026, at *5 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2007) (dismissing pro se plaintiff’s
abandoned claims with prejudice).
Fourth, Magistrate Judge Evangelista recommended that Plaintiff’s gender discrimination
and retaliation claims under Title VII and NYSHRL against Waste Management be permitted to
proceed. Dkt. No. 11 at 8, 15. Magistrate Judge Evangelista found that Plaintiff alleged facts that
give rise to a plausible inference of discrimination based on her gender, see id. at 8 (citations
omitted), by alleging that she suffered multiple adverse employment actions because of her gender,
including being passed over for promotions and ultimately being terminated, see id. at 7-8 (citing,
inter alia, Dkt. No. 8 at 2-4), and by supporting her allegations with statements from Mr. Balls-
Suarez. See id. (citing Dkt. No. 9 at 1). Magistrate Judge Evangelista also concluded that Plaintiff
sufficiently pled retaliation claims under Title VII and NYSHRL by alleging that her driving route
was changed to one with increased safety risks because she is a woman, she was ignored and forced
to continue driving the more dangerous route despite raising these safety issues with her direct
supervisor and managers, id. at 14 (citing Dkt. No. 8 at 1-2), and “she was ‘ultimately terminated
in retaliation for raising concerns about discriminatory treatment and unsafe practices.’” 	Id.
(quoting Dkt. No. 8 at 3).
Fifth, Magistrate Judge Evangelista recommended that Plaintiff’s gender discrimination
claim under the NYSHRL against Defendant Dennis be permitted to proceed. Id. at 12. Magistrate
Judge Evangelista concluded that Plaintiff sufficiently pled a prima facie claim of gender
discrimination. Id. at 10-12 (noting that the NYSHRL pleading standards were amended to align
Case 1:24-cv-01499-AMN-PJE Document 14 Filed 12/22/25 Page 6 of 9

7
more closely with the NYCHRL). Magistrate Judge Evangelista found that Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint alleges that (i) Dennis had the authority to hire and fire employees at Waste
Management, see id. at 10 (citing, inter alia, Dkt. No. 8 at 2 and Dkt. No. 9 at 1), and that (ii)
gender was a motivating factor in Dennis’s decision to fire Plaintiff. See id. at 12 (citing, inter
alia, Dkt. No. 8 at 2-3 and Dkt. No. 9 at 1).
Sixth, 	Magistrate 	Judge 	Evangelista 	recommended 	that 	Plaintiff’s 	hostile 	work
environment claim under the NYSHRL against Waste Management be permitted to proceed. Id.
at 17. Magistrate Judge Evangelista found that Plaintiff “sufficiently pled that she was ‘subjected
to inferior terms, conditions, or privileges of employment’ because of her membership in a
protected class.” Id. (quoting Johnson v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., LLC, No. 22-cv-9691,
2024 WL 1217074, at *13 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2024) (citations omitted)). Specifically, Magistrate
Judge Evangelista noted that Plaintiff alleged that she “(1) [was] forced to use unsafe equipment
and work in an unsafe work environment, (2) [was] passed over for promotions in favor of less-
qualified male coworkers, and (3) [was] ‘repeatedly harassed, including being present when Mr.
Dennis relieved himself between buildings, being verbally assaulted by a male employee, and
being denied access to safe restroom facilities’” because she is a woman. Id. at 17 (quoting Dkt.
No. 8 at 2-3).
Lastly, 	Magistrate 	Judge 	Evangelista 	recommended 	that 	Plaintiff’s 	claims 	against
Defendants Dennis and Glass for aiding and abetting a hostile work environment be permitted to
proceed. 	Id. at 20. 	Magistrate Judge Evangelista concluded that Plaintiff sufficiently pled that
Defendants Dennis and Glass aided and abetted Waste Management’s alleged creation of a hostile
work environment. 	Id. 	Specifically, Magistrate Judge Evangelista found that the Amended
Complaint could support an inference that Defendant Dennis “incited, ‘encouraged, condoned, and
Case 1:24-cv-01499-AMN-PJE Document 14 Filed 12/22/25 Page 7 of 9

8
approved the discriminatory conduct,’ and actually participated insofar as he [i] failed to ‘take
adequate remedial measures in response to a complaint of discrimination’” and “[ii] ma[de] false
statements regarding the confrontation between [P]laintiff and Dennis.” 	Id. at 19-20 (quoting
Milner-Koonce v. Albany City Sch. Dist., No. 21-cv-1271, 2023 WL 3748831, at *6 (N.D.N.Y.
June 1, 2023) (noting that it is unlawful to “aid, abet, incite, compel or coerce the doing of any of
the acts forbidden under the NYSHRL, or to attempt to do so”) (internal quotation marks, citations,
and brackets omitted)). Regarding Defendant Glass, Magistrate Judge Evangelista also found that
the Amended Complaint could support an inference that Glass “actually participated in, or aided
and abetted, a hostile work environment by making false statements regarding the confrontation
between [P]laintiff and Dennis.” Id. at 20 (citing, inter alia, Dkt. Nos. 8, 9 at 20).
Having 	reviewed 	the 	Report-Recommendation 	and 	considered 	Magistrate 	Judge
Evangelista’s 	findings as 	to 	each claim, the Court 	finds 	no 	clear 	error 	in 	the 	Report-
Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court hereby
ORDERS that the Report-Recommendation, Dkt. No. 11, is ADOPTED in its entirety;
and the Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Title VII gender discrimination claims against Defendants
Winowski and Crom be DISMISSED with prejudice and without leave to amend; and the Court
further
ORDERS that Plaintiff’s NYSHRL gender discrimination claims against Defendants
Glass, Bender, Mazzelli, Winowski, and Crom be DISMISSED with prejudice and without
leave to amend; and the Court further
Case 1:24-cv-01499-AMN-PJE Document 14 Filed 12/22/25 Page 8 of 9

9
ORDERS that Plaintiff’s defamation and breach of contract claims be deemed abandoned
and DISMISSED with prejudice and without leave to amend; and the Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff’s gender discrimination and retaliation claims against Waste
Management under Title VII and the NYSHRL be permitted to proceed; and the Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff’s gender discrimination claim against Defendant Dennis under the
NYSHRL be permitted to proceed; and the Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim under the NYSHRL against
Waste Management be permitted to proceed; and the Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff’s aiding and abetting an abusive work environment claim under
the NYSHRL against Defendants Dennis and Glass be permitted to proceed; and the Court
further
ORDERS that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on all parties in accordance with the
Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 22, 2025
Albany, New York
Case 1:24-cv-01499-AMN-PJE Document 14 Filed 12/22/25 Page 9 of 9