Articles Posted in Hostile Work Environment

In order to assert a claim under New York City sexual harassment laws, a plaintiff must usually demonstrate that an employment relationship existed between the plaintiff and the defendant. When the plaintiff and the alleged harasser received paychecks from the same entity, establishing this relationship is straightforward. Many workplaces present a much more complicated picture, though. Businesses often use a complex system of outsourcing through contractors in an effort to cut costs. This can cause confusion with regard to liability. New York courts, fortunately, have ruled that the definition of “employer” is not very strict in claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which governs many New York City sexual harassment claims.

Employers may be liable for third-party sexual harassment, meaning harassment against an employee by someone other than a fellow employee, such as a contractor, customer, or client. If the employer was aware that harassment was occurring, and they failed to take reasonable actions to prevent it or remedy the situation, they may be held liable under Title VII. This is similar to the standard for a hostile work environment created by a co-worker or another employee who is not in a position of authority over a plaintiff. The alleged harasser might not have direct control over the plaintiff’s employment, but they still have the power to make the workplace unbearable.

A 1981 decision by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) addressed this type of situation. The plaintiff was employed by a company that had a contract to provide property management services at a Manhattan office building, although there was some confusion as to the exact employment relationship. She worked as a lobby attendant, which partly involved “offer[ing] assistance and information to people entering the building and k[eeping] those who did not belong in the building from loitering.”

Continue reading

The restaurant industry is very familiar to New York City sexual harassment attorneys. The business model and managerial structure of many restaurants might never have been intended to foster multiple forms of sexual harassment, but that is exactly what happens far too often. Competition for shift assignments can lead unscrupulous supervisors and managers to take advantage of the power their positions give them. Reliance on tips can make servers hesitate to report or otherwise call out harassment. Behavior that creates a hostile work environment can go unchallenged as a result. Thankfully, many people are standing up for their rights. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency charged with enforcing antidiscrimination law, recently filed a lawsuit on behalf of several women alleging sexual harassment by a chef at a restaurant in Upstate New York.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in the workplace on the basis of sex and several other factors. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). The EEOC recognized sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination in violation of Title VII in the early 1980s. Court decisions and administrative rulings have expanded the legal definition of sexual harassment over the years.

Federal law now recognizes two general categories of sexual harassment. 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(a). Quid pro quo sexual harassment occurs when giving in to unwelcome demands for some sort of sexual activity is made a condition of someone’s employment or is the basis for employment decisions, including hiring and firing. A hostile work environment occurs when pervasive and unwelcome sexual conduct prevents a person from doing their job.

Continue reading

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits sex discrimination, including sexual harassment, in employment throughout the country, including New York City. Sexual harassment is not limited to the workplace, and Title VII is not the only federal statute that views sexual harassment as unlawful discrimination. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits sex discrimination in education. This includes sexual harassment of students by teachers or other employees, and harassment between students. Members of the women’s college swimming team filed a lawsuit in a New York federal court against their school in September 2019. They allege that the school failed to act on their complaints of sexual harassment by members of the men’s team. If you feel you are suffering from harassment that is sexual in nature, contact a New York City sexual harassment attorney to learn what your rights are under the law.

Title IX prohibits any educational institution that receives federal funding from discriminating on the basis of sex in terms of access to educational opportunities and benefits, and participation in educational activities. 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). The federal regulations implementing Title IX do not provide the kind of specific guidance that is available for Title VII claims for sexual harassment. See 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11. The swimmers’ lawsuit cites several regulations, however, that demonstrate how sexual harassment can deny equal educational opportunity. This includes “equal athletic opportunity.” 34 C.F.R. § 106.41(c).

The U.S. Supreme Court first recognized a private cause of action for sexual harassment under Title IX in Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (1998). That case involved a teacher and a student. The following year the court ruled on a student’s claim of sexual harassment by another student in Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Ed., 526 U.S. 629 (1999). The elements of a claim for student sexual harassment, outlined in Davis, are similar to the elements of a hostile work environment claim under Title VII. A plaintiff must demonstrate that the school “act[ed] with deliberate indifference to known acts of harassment,” and that the harassment was “so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive” as to prevent “access to an educational opportunity or benefit.” Id. at 633.

Continue reading

Sexual harassment is unfortunately still a common occurrence in the entertainment industry. New York City sexual harassment attorneys have represented plaintiffs in television, film, music, and theater, to name only a few areas. In August 2019, several individuals involved with opera productions around the country came forward with allegations that a famous male opera singer had sexually harassed them. By mid-September, the number had grown to twenty women, including opera singers, dancers, and others. The Associated Press (AP) reported that the singer’s alleged harassment “was an open secret,” and that “young women were left to fend for themselves in the workplace.” In late September, the singer announced that he was withdrawing from an upcoming production of Verdi’s “Macbeth” at New York City’s Metropolitan Opera (the “Met”).

Employment laws all over the country prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, and include sexual harassment in this category of discrimination. At the federal level, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits multiple forms of sexual harassment. One form, known as hostile work environment, occurs when “unwelcome…conduct of a sexual nature…creat[es] an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.” 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(a)(3). An employer is typically liable for hostile work environment when the perpetrator is a manager or supervisor. If the unwelcome sexual conduct comes from a co-worker, customer, client, or other individual in the workplace, an employer may be held liable if they knew about the conduct and failed to take reasonable actions to prevent it.

The allegations against the opera singer are reminiscent in some ways of the allegations against the Hollywood film producer that launched the #MeToo movement. The producer’s behavior was also described as an “open secret.” Aspiring actresses were reportedly warned about him and advised about ways to avoid his advances. At the same time, the perception was often that acceding to requests—or demands—for sexual activity were a requirement for entry into Hollywood. This is how the term “casting couch” came about.

Continue reading

The New York State Legislature passed a bill on June 19, 2019, A8421/S6577, that makes multiple changes to how the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) handles claims involving sexual harassment and other alleged unlawful employment practices. Section 2 of the bill adds a new provision to the NYSHRL that would effectively eliminate an affirmative defense available to employers, first under federal law and then under New York law, that is quite familiar to New York City sexual harassment attorneys. Employers can avoid liability for hostile work environment when they can establish that the plaintiff did not utilize opportunities provided by the employer to prevent or rectify alleged harassment. It is known as the Faragher/Ellerth defense, after two U.S. Supreme Court decisions issued on the same day: Faragher v. Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998); and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998).

A hostile work environment generally occurs, in violation of antidiscrimination law, when pervasive and unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature substantially interferes with an employee’s ability to perform their job duties. The Faragher/Ellerth defense allows an employer to raise an affirmative defense to liability that consists of two main elements: (1) the employer acted reasonably to prevent and/or remedy sexual harassment in the workplace; and (2) the employee unreasonably failed to make use of opportunities to prevent or address harassment. A third element, sometimes included in the defense, involves a lack of materially adverse action against the employee because of their complaint. If an employer can prove these two or three elements by a preponderance of evidence, they can avoid liability.

Both Faragher and Ellerth involved sexual harassment claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Courts have also applied the defense to claims under the NYSHRL. In 2009, a federal court in the Southern District of New York declined to apply the Faragher/Ellerth defense to a case brought under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). It certified a question to the New York Court of Appeals, asking whether the Faragher/Ellerth defense was available in NYCHRL cases. New York’s highest court ruled in 2010 that the defense is not available, noting different wording in the NYCHRL compared to other statutes.
Continue reading

Multiple legal strategies are available to New York City employment discrimination attorneys who are planning to assert a claim for sexual harassment on a client’s behalf. Federal, state, and municipal law provide protection against a wide range of discriminatory workplace practices. State law includes provisions that specifically apply to domestic workers, and which outline various situations that may constitute unlawful sexual harassment. A lawsuit filed in a Manhattan federal court in April 2019 alleges sexual harassment and other claims against an individual who employed the plaintiff as an au pair for his son. The complaint cites provisions of state and federal law that apply to domestic workers.

While sexual harassment is deemed a type of sex discrimination in any workplace, the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) addresses it in more specific terms for domestic workers. The term “domestic worker” includes people employed in someone’s residence to perform housekeeping services; to care for a child or “a sick, convalescing or elderly person”; or for “other domestic service purpose[s].” N.Y. Exec. L. § 296-b(1), N.Y. Lab. L. § 2(16). The NYSHRL prohibits “unwelcome sexual advances,” “requests for sexual favors,” and other conduct in two scenarios:
1. When acquiescence “to such conduct is made…a term or condition of…employment,” or the employer bases employment-related decisions on how the individual responds to the conduct; or
2. When the conduct creates a hostile work environment that “unreasonably interfer[es] with…work performance.” N.Y. Exec. L. § 296-b(2)(a).
These are the same scenarios that constitute sexual harassment under federal and city law. The New York Legislature has taken the extra step of codifying these definitions, as they pertain to domestic workers, in the NYSHRL.

According to her complaint, the plaintiff was nineteen years old when the defendant hired her to work in his home as an au pair for his twelve-year-old son, and to perform other jobs around the house. She notes that the defendant was fifty-seven years old at that time. She also notes the difference in size between them, with the defendant allegedly outweighing her by about eighty pounds and standing more than seven inches taller.
Continue reading

Employees in New York City who have experienced sexual harassment have several options for asserting claims and seeking damages. A New York City sexual harassment attorney with knowledge of the city’s legal system can help you determine the best route for your case. In 2015, the New York City Commission on Human Rights (CHR) ordered an employer to pay the maximum possible civil penalty allowed by the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL)—$250,000—for the first time since the law’s enactment. A state court affirmed the order in Automatic Meter Reading Corp. v New York City (“AMRC”), 2019 NY Slip Op 50464(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty., Feb. 28, 2019).

Sexual harassment is considered a form of unlawful sex discrimination in two situations, known as quid pro quo sexual harassment and hostile work environment. The U.S. Supreme Court first recognized sexual harassment as a violation of federal antidiscrimination law in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986). The court held that the allegedly harassing conduct must be “severe or pervasive” enough to impact the claimant’s ability to perform their job. Id. at 67. State law in New York has adopted a similar standard.

New York City courts do not view the NYCHRL’s “standard for sexual harassment violations [as] a carbon copy of the federal and state standard.”, see also N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-130(a). A complainant asserting a claim under the NYCHRL does not have to prove harassment that meets the federal “severe or pervasive” standard. Instead, they need only prove that they were “treated less well than other employees” because of their gender, and that the allegedly harassing conduct was “more than non-actionable petty slights and minor inconveniences.”
Continue reading