Articles Posted in Hostile Work Environment

New York City is renowned for its theater scene. Broadway theaters offer some of the best and most well-regarded productions in the world. The various levels of “off-Broadway” theaters offer everything from the familiar to the avant-garde. Given what we know about other media industries, it should be no surprise that theater workers must also deal with sexual harassment. New York City’s theater scene has taken some steps to address the issue, but it remains a serious problem. Reports from earlier this year revealed allegations of sexual harassment and assault in a popular “immersive” theater production, where audience members may interact directly with performers, and a few have allegedly groped cast members. In order to address this sort of situation, New York City sexual harassment attorneys may not only have to identify the legal relationships between the various parties, but also the ways in which the nature of the production itself could put people at risk.

Under statutes like the New York City Human Rights Law, sexual harassment is an unlawful form of sex discrimination in two broad scenarios. Quid pro quo sexual harassment occurs when an individual with managerial or supervisory authority demands some sort of sexual activity in exchange for employment or various perks of employment. One example of this in the entertainment world is the “casting couch,” in which a producer or director will cast someone in their production in exchange for sexual activity.

The other legally-actionable form of sexual harassment occurs when a pattern of unwelcome sexual conduct creates a hostile work environment that inhibits the ability to do one’s job. The perpetrators of a hostile work environment do not have to be in a superior position to the complainant for a claim to be viable. They could be co-workers, customers, or audience members. The complainant must, however, be able to show that the employer knew about the harassment and failed to take reasonable steps to deal with it.
Continue reading

The holiday season means many different things to people: family, friends, food, a general sense of merriment, and so on. It also means that many employers will host holiday parties for their employees, managers, executives, and perhaps clients and customers. The “office holiday party” has a reputation, largely thanks to movies and television, as an unabashedly wild event free from customary rules and restrictions. It is our duty as New York City employment attorneys to remind everyone that the rules still apply, however wild the party might be. Harassment on the basis of any protected category is unlawful. We believe that holiday parties should be fun for everybody, meaning that the fun should never come at anyone’s expense.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, and national origin. Other federal statutes prohibit age and disability discrimination. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has determined that this includes harassment of any employee based on these factors, whether it comes from someone in a supervisory position or not. An employer may be liable in either situation if they are aware of the harassment and fail to make reasonable efforts to address it. The New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) protects a much broader range of categories than Title VII, including sexual orientation and gender identity.

The EEOC has stated that isolated incidents, unless they are particularly severe, do not constitute violations of Title VII or other statutes. This generally applies to violations of the NYCHRL as well. Multiple acts of harassment become a violation of antidiscrimination law when they create a hostile work environment, or otherwise interfere with an employee’s ability to do their jobs.
Continue reading

The holiday season is upon us, which means office holiday parties will be happening soon. Although the start of the #MeToo movement shortly before last year’s holiday season might have led to fewer—or at least less extravagant—holiday parties, the holiday season always seems to make some people think the usual rules do not apply. As New York City sexual harassment lawyers, please let us assure you that the rules do still apply. Here is Phillips & Associates’ guide to throwing a holiday party that everybody in the office can enjoy.

First, let us speak a bit about what constitutes sexual harassment in the workplace—which includes office parties. Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination under statutes like the New York City Human Rights Law in two general scenarios:

  1. Quid pro quo sexual harassment occurs when sexual activity, from “dirty talk” to actual sexual contact, is made a condition of employment. This usually involves a supervisor, manager, or executive making demands of an employee in a subordinate position. It can be an outright demand, e.g. “do this if you want a good shift schedule.” It can also be more subtle, such as when the circumstances indicate that rejecting a supervisor’s advances will be damaging to one’s job.
  2. A hostile work environment occurs when an employee is subjected to unwanted and pervasive sexual remarks, jokes, overtures, or advances, to the extent that it interferes with their ability to do their job. This type of sexual harassment can occur between co-workers of equal rank within a company, but then the employer is only liable if they knew about the harassment and failed to act. Many hostile work environment claims involve an ongoing pattern of offensive behavior by one or more individuals. A single incident can also support a hostile work environment claim if it is severe enough.

Continue reading

Over three thousand people gathered in New York City on November 1, 2018 as part of a worldwide “walkout” by Google employees. The walkout’s purpose was to protest the company’s reported handling of sexual harassment and misconduct allegations against a former executive. About twenty thousand employees worldwide participated in the walkout. The company later announced changes to its procedures in sexual harassment cases. In situations like this, where employees take direct action to demand change from employers, New York City sexual harassment attorneys should be aware of workers’ legal rights, and the extent of protection for workers who walk off the job.

Statutes like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) prohibit employers from discriminating against workers on the basis of sex. This includes sexual harassment in various scenarios. Before aggrieved employees may go to court to sue for damages, they must make use of administrative procedures within the employer, if any, and within a government agency like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Most antidiscrimination statutes do not require employers to maintain any specific policies or practices regarding the investigation of sexual harassment allegations. The NYCHRL is an exceptions thanks to recent amendments. Employers are required, however, to apply whatever policies and practices they do maintain fairly and consistently.

The walkout by Google employees was not a “strike” in the common sense of the term, since it did not arise from a collective bargaining disagreement between the employer and a union. It still arguably falls under the types of activities protected by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). In addition to activities that are directly related to organizing for collective bargaining, the NLRA protects workers’ rights “to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of…mutual aid or protection.” 29 U.S.C. § 157. Employers may not “interfere with [or] restrain…employees in the exercise” of these rights. Id. at § 158(a)(1).
Continue reading

The fashion industry in New York City and elsewhere around the country and the world has produced numerous accounts of the sexual harassment of models. Alleged New York sexual harassment incidents have involved photographers during shoots, or a wide range of people backstage during fashion shows, where models are often expected to change clothes without much privacy. Much of the attention has focused on female models. An article published earlier this year in the New York Times details male models’ allegations of sexual harassment. Men experience sexual harassment at lower overall rates than women, with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reporting that seventeen percent of the complaints it receives are from men. The modeling business presents an unusual situation, however, since it is one of the very few jobs where women routinely—and often significantly—earn more than men. Both female and male models have alleged various types of sexual harassment, including “casting couch” situations where they are told they must acquiesce to demands for sexual activity in order to advance in their careers.

Federal, state, and municipal laws in New York City prohibit sexual harassment, classifying it as a form of sex discrimination. Unlawful sexual harassment may take two broad forms. The “casting couch” scenario described above is an example of “quid pro quo sexual harassment,” where sexual activity of some sort is made a condition of obtaining employment, or of accessing various features and benefits of employment. The modeling business also presents scenarios that could constitute “hostile work environment.” This type of sexual harassment involves unwanted sexual behavior in the workplace, ranging from jokes or remarks to nonconsensual contact, which is pervasive enough to interfere with the complainant’s ability to work.

Models often exist somewhat outside of traditional employee/employer relationships, which can affect their ability to assert a claim under the law. They are represented by agencies, who enter into agreements with fashion brands and other companies. Those companies might be the ones to hire the photographer. According to the New York Times, the agencies and the brands point fingers at each other with regard to who is responsible for protecting models from sexual harassment and abuse at the hands of photographers and others. The photographers, the Times article states, “say they do what they do to get the best picture — which is what the clients want.”
Continue reading

New York employment discrimination laws (as well as those around the country) tend to focus on the actions of individual managers, supervisors, or others; or on individual discriminatory policies or practices by employers. This approach is useful and necessary for obtaining justice for individual employees who have endured sexual harassment. It is proving, however, to be insufficient for addressing broader systemic problems that enable and contribute to sexual harassment and employment discrimination in the first place. Liability for damages in a sexual harassment lawsuit might not provide incentive for widespread reforms in companies with vast resources. Earlier this year, the State of New York tried a different approach. Instead of acting in its capacity as an enforcer of employment discrimination laws, it acted in its capacity as a corporate shareholder, alleging that a former CEO accused of sexual misconduct breached his fiduciary duties. New York City’s public pension funds later joined the lawsuit alongside the state funds. DiNapoli et al v. Wynn et al, No. A-18-770013-B, verif. am. complaint (Nev. Dist. Ct., Clark Cty., Mar. 23, 2018).

Under employment statutes like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex includes sexual harassment in two broad categories. Quid pro quo sexual harassment consists of demands for sexual activity in some form as a condition of obtaining or maintaining employment. Hostile work environment involves unwelcome sexual conduct, ranging from sexual jokes or remarks to outright sexual contact or assault, that is so pervasive that it interferes with an employee’s ability to do their job. These laws allow employees to file complaints, followed by lawsuits, seeking a variety of damages.

Lawsuits for employment discrimination can lead to changes within a company, such as when a public agency like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission requires new company policies, subject to monitoring and review, as part of a settlement. Unlike this type of lawsuit, which imposes change from the outside, shareholder derivative suits are brought by corporate insiders as a means of enforcing a corporation’s rights or protecting its interests. See N.Y. Bus. Corp. L. § 626. A lawsuit brought under Title VII or the NYCHRL typically casts the employer on the side of the alleged harasser, seeking to hold the company liable for the actions of its agent. A shareholder derivative suit arguably allows a company to distance itself from the alleged acts of individuals. It is no substitute for a lawsuit that allows an aggrieved employee to recover damages directly, but it could be a useful method of demonstrating that corporations will not tolerate sexual harassment among their executives.
Continue reading

For the past year, the #MeToo movement has sought to shine a light on workplace sexual harassment. It has shown that, despite laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, sexual harassment in New York City and across the country remains a major problem. While lawmakers and legal advocates examine the laws addressing sexual harassment, leaders in various industries are exploring ways to address the issue before the courts must get involved. The Producers Guild of America (PGA), a trade association representing film and television producers, issued new guidelines on sexual harassment in January 2018. The guidelines do not have the force of law, but they represent best practices recommended for both PGA members and others. The PGA also announced that Wonder Woman 1984, the sequel to the 2017 film Wonder Woman, would be the first production to adopt the new guidelines. If you have questions about how you’ve been treated at your job, speak to a New York sexual harassment attorney.

Experience unfortunately indicates that existing antidiscrimination statutes can only provide so much protection against sexual harassment. Title VII prohibits sex discrimination and sexual harassment in employment, but the legal definition of “employment” can exclude a wide range of people and jobs. The entertainment industry, where #MeToo began, offers an example of this problem. Many of the alleged acts of sexual harassment did not involve a specific job, such as a role in a film. Instead they were often presented as a way for individuals, usually actresses but also actors, to “pay their dues” in Hollywood.

The PGA’s Anti-Sexual Harassment Guidelines, first published on January 19, 2018, are intended to help movie and television producers respond to incidents of sexual harassment, and prevent sexual harassment from occurring in the first place. They provide definitions of the two main forms of sexual harassment recognized by law as unlawful sex discrimination: quid pro quo harassment and hostile work environment. The guidelines instruct producers, “first and foremost,” to comply with all relevant state and federal laws. From there, they recommend “in-person anti-sexual harassment (ASH) training” for all cast and crew members, prior to the start of production, that focuses on “a culture of respect that starts at the top.” Producers should provide clear systems for reporting alleged harassment, investigate all claims, and prevent retaliation.

Continue reading

In New York City, sexual harassment is viewed as unlawful sex discrimination under federal, state, and municipal law. The past year has seen numerous instances of workplace sexual harassment finally seeing some measure of attention and, in some cases, justice. For all the progress that we have seen recently, it is worth remembering that nationwide recognition of sexual harassment as a violation of antidiscrimination laws first occurred just over thirty years ago, and that the term “sexual harassment” itself is barely forty years old. A group of women in New York coined the term in 1975, in support of a woman who quit her job because of a male supervisor’s alleged unwelcome sexual advances.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of several factors, including sex. A series of court decisions have expanded the definition of “discrimination on the basis of sex” to include two sexual harassment scenarios. First, “quid pro quo sexual harassment” involves demands for some sort of sexual activity by a supervisor or manager, either as a condition for obtaining employment or as a condition for continued employment or employment benefits. Second, a “hostile work environment” occurs when a worker is subjected to unwanted sexual conduct, ranging from jokes or comments to outright assault, which interferes with their ability to perform their job duties. It took years of advocacy and litigation to get legal recognition of these claims.

Before sexual harassment had a name, women had no clear way to push back against such behavior by bosses and coworkers. The television show Mad Men might have been a “historical drama,” but the history it portrayed is very recent. In 1975, a woman quit her job at Cornell University after enduring years of unwanted advances from her boss, including alleged acts that might be deemed sexual assault today. She filed for unemployment benefits, but was denied after the university asserted that she quit for “personal reasons.” A group of women employed by the university rallied to her defense, founding a group called Working Women United. The group held meetings at which women shared their workplace experiences. The term “sexual harassment” appeared out of these meetings.

Workers in the restaurant industry, particularly servers, depend on tips for their income. Under both state and federal law, employers are not required to pay the full minimum wage amount to employees who customarily receive tips. Instead, they pay a “tip credit” that, when combined with a worker’s tip income, totals at least the minimum wage. This can put restaurant workers in a vulnerable position. A restaurant server may worry about lost income if they object to harassment by a customer. A report published by Mic in late 2017 examined reports of sexual harassment by tipped restaurant employees. It found that restaurant workers have one of the highest rates of reported sexual harassment.

The federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) defines a “tipped employee” as one who “customarily and regularly receives more than $30 a month in tips.” 29 U.S.C. § 203(t). Tipped employees’ compensation is a combination of wages paid by their employer and tips paid by customers. An employer of a tipped employee must pay a minimum wage, or tip credit, of $2.13 per hour, plus any additional amount needed to raise the employee’s total compensation to the minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. Id. at §§ 203(m), 206(a)(1)(C); 29 C.F.R. § 531.59. New York City mandates higher minimum wages than the FLSA. N.Y. Lab. L. § 652(1)(a). For tipped employees in New York City restaurants, the minimum wage as of December 31, 2017 is $8.00 per hour for employers with ten or fewer employees, and $8.65 per hour for those with eleven or more employees. The tip credit is $4.00 and $4.35, respectively.

Laws at the federal, state, and city level in New York City prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sex. This includes sexual harassment in situations where unwelcome and pervasive sexual conduct creates a hostile work environment. A claim could arise from a single incident, if it is severe enough, but most hostile work environment claims are based on an ongoing pattern of behavior. The conduct that gives rise to a hostile work environment could come from one or more supervisors, coworkers, or customers. If, as is the case in the Mic report mentioned above, customers are responsible for the alleged hostile work environment, the employer must have known about the conduct and failed to act in order to be liable.
Continue reading

As the nation pays greater attention to sexual harassment in the workplace, hotel maintenance employees are finally gaining a platform to talk about what they have endured. Several recent high-profile lawsuits have sought to address the alleged sexual harassment of housekeeping workers by hotel managers and other employees. Many housekeepers face another problem, however—sexual harassment by hotel guests. Employers may be held liable for acts perpetrated by customers, but New York City sexual harassment plaintiffs must prove that the employer knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to act. This can be particularly difficult in the context of hotel maintenance, in which employees may find themselves alone with a guest in the guest’s room. Measures like panic buttons may help address the issue, but the sheer scope of the problem suggests that much work is left to be done.Sexual harassment is considered a form of sex discrimination under statutes like the New York City Human Rights Law and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. One of the main forms of sexual harassment covered by these laws occurs when unwelcome sexual conduct creates a hostile work environment that interferes with an employee’s ability to do their job. In order to assert a claim for a hostile work environment created by one or more customers, a plaintiff must be able to “show that the employer either knew (actual notice) or should have known (constructive notice) of the harassment and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action.” Watson v. Blue Circle, Inc., 324 F. 3d 1252, 1259 (11th Cir. 2003).

The hospitality industry presents additional challenges for plaintiffs. In a practical sense, identifying guests who sexually harass hotel employees can be difficult because of “plausible deniability”—it is usually the employee’s word against the guest’s. This makes investigations difficult and puts a hotel in a position of choosing between an employee and a paying customer. In a legal sense, hotels and other lodging-related businesses have a particularly high duty of care toward their customers. “A hotel…has a duty to use due care to protect its guests against foreseeable hazards, including criminal acts.” Shadday v. Omni Hotels Mgt. Corp., 477 F. 3d 511, 512 (7th Cir. 2007).

Part of the basis for a hotel’s duty of care to its guests is based on the general fact “that the hotel has much better access to information about the danger than its guests do.” Id. at 512-13. A hotel also has a duty to protect its employees against criminal acts and other hazards, but absent a robust method for reporting and recording complaints by hotel employees against guests, it can be difficult for hotels to anticipate or respond to problems with individual guests.

Contact Information