Articles Posted in Hostile Work Environment

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

Workplace harassment is almost always a nuisance. It is not necessarily always illegal under laws like the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). Harassment only violates the law when it is based on a protected category like race or sex, and when it directly impacts a person’s employment or the quality of the work environment. When assessing whether harassment crosses the line between a nuisance and an unlawful employment practice, New York City discrimination attorneys must carefully examine the circumstances of each case.

What Is Harassment?

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which enforces federal antidiscrimination laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, defines harassment as “unwelcome conduct that is based on” a protected category. It states that harassment based on one or more of these categories becomes unlawful in two situations:
1. Quid pro quo harassment: The complainant must “endur[e] the offensive conduct” as “a condition of continued employment”; or
2. Hostile work environment: The allegedly harassing conduct is so “severe or pervasive” that it “create[s] a work environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive.”

If the alleged harasser is a supervisor with authority over the complainant’s employment, the employer may be held liable even if management did not know about the conduct. See Vance v. Ball State University, 570 U.S. 421 (2013). If the alleged harasser is a co-worker, customer, or other individual, the complainant must demonstrate that the employer knew about the harassment and failed to remedy it.
Continue reading

Many sexual harassment claims involve patterns of inappropriate comments. When assessing whether comments are inappropriate and of a sexual nature, New York City sexual harassment lawyers must consider verbal cues, body language, and facial expressions. Most or all of those cues are missing, however, in written communications. This is particularly true when emoji symbols are involved. “Emoji sexual harassment” is a relatively new, but quickly growing, area of law. Some lawsuits include emoji among the alleged inappropriate comments, often based on secondary meanings ascribed to particular symbols. At the same time, some courts have cited plaintiffs’ use of emoji when ruling for defendants.

Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), the New York State Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Unlawful sexual harassment generally takes two forms. “Hostile work environment” occurs when pervasive and unwelcome sexual behavior interferes with a person’s ability to do their job. “Quid pro quo sexual harassment” occurs when submission to some form of sexual activity is made a condition of obtaining or keeping employment. Unwanted sexual remarks or overtures are a common feature of both types of sexual harassment claim.

Emoji are a set of small images that can be inserted into text messages on smartphones, as well as in emails and social media services like Facebook. Certain symbols have taken on specific meanings. An article in Wired describes the symbols as “a primitive language.” As a result of this, the inclusion of emoji in a text message can convey unintended meanings, or plausibly-deniable meanings. Emoji symbols that depict objects that might be considered phallic, such as the corn and eggplant symbols, have taken on that secondary meaning. Even symbols that seem to have obvious meanings, like the “smiley face” emoji, can be subject to multiple interpretations.
Continue reading