New York Sexual Harassment Lawyer Blog

The City of New York City will pay a total of $300,000 to two police officers settling a sexual harassment lawsuit filed in connection with their claims of sexual harassment by a male supervisor. An attorney for the Plaintiffs stated, "Although our clients are satisfied that the litigation is over, it is further proof that the once-silent issue of same-sex harassment is on the rise."

The perpetrator of the harassment retired from the New York Police Department following a department trial in which he was found guilty of gesturing toward the officers in sexually suggestive ways and simulating a sexual act in their presence.

Additional information can be found here.

The scope of an employer’s liability has recently and dramatically increased in order to protect sexually harassed employees. Holdings in the New York federal district court cases Padmore v. LC Play, Inc., Guzman v. Macy’s Retail and Zakrzewska v. The New School are substantially broadening employer liability.

Generally stated, the aforementioned cases adopt the following changes to the current New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). Previously, employers could escape liability by asserting the defense that the employee unreasonably failed to utilize an employer’s preventative or corrective anti-discrimination/harassment procedure. This defense, called “Faragher-Ellerth”, will no longer be accepted. Instead, regardless of an employee’s use of their employer’s complaint procedure, employers are now strictly liable for any sexual harassment committed by their supervisors.

In addition to the inflating scope of the NYCHRL, the courts also expanded its reach. Now, employers who do not maintain offices may still be potentially liable to both the NYCHRL and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), if they regularly conduct business in New York. Only one act of discrimination or harassment, in New York, is necessary to trigger the NYCHRL or NYSHRL, even if the impact is generally felt outside New York

Hope Dendy, a New York City resident, s suing the City for sexual harassment by her boss, a longtime parks supervisor. She began working for the Parks Department under a job training program designed to help people gain training for permanent jobs. After being sent to the wrong location on her first day, Dendy’s boss tightly hugged her and kissed her on the cheek.

Dendy, hopes the lawsuit will prevent this type of harassment from happening to other women on public assistance who are looking for jobs.

The complete article can be found here.

The New York City Police Department was recently faced with a reminder that a police precinct is a work environment just like any other - open to potential misconduct if left unwatched. The NYPD has been served with a $40 million lawsuit by a former officer accusing the institution of sexual harassment. Despite having been on the job for over 17 years as a cop, being the lone female (and lesbian) officer in the 49th Precinct left Arlene Ramery in an atmosphere that was “permeated with ‘sexism’ and ‘frat boy’ type behavior.” Standing up for women on the job, Ramery claims to have an exemplary record and feels betrayed by the NYPD after her years of service. This is the not the only sexual harassment claim filed against the NYPD of late. The so-called ‘Twilight’ case is currently being investigated by the EEOC and an internal probe by the department has been launched

If New York’s Finest hope to keep female recruitment up, precincts should take efforts to monitor staff behavior and ensure safety in the work environment.

More information can be found here.

In a fairly recent case handed down by the New York Court of Appeals, employers are held strictly liable for a supervisor’s conduct in sexual harassment cases. Ordinarily, state courts like to try and reconcile both federal laws like Title VII with state laws.

In Zakrewska v. The New School, the plaintiff claimed that she had been sexually harassed by her immediate supervisor through e-mails and certain conduct. She sued the school using the NYCHRL (New York City Human Rights Law) in federal district court. The New School tried to use the Ellerth defense (allows for a defendant in a Title VII case to claim immunity to vicarious liability of employees if (1) there was no tangible employment action take because of the harassment, (2) the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and in response to the harassing conduct, and (3) the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of preventative or corrective opportunities provided by the employer). The district court denied the motion and The New School appealed which was certified by the 2nd Circuit.

The 2nd Circuit agreed with the district court that the defense was not available under the New York City Human Rights Law. The plain language of Section 8-107 precludes the use of the Ellerth defense by stating:[a]n employer shall be liable for an unlawful discriminatory practice based upon the conduct of an employee or agent which is in violation of subdivision one or two of this section only where:
"(1) the employee or agent exercised managerial or supervisory responsibility; or
"(2) the employer knew of the employee's or agent's discriminatory conduct, and acquiesced in such conduct or failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action; an employer shall be deemed to have knowledge of an employee's or agent's discriminatory conduct where that conduct was known by another employee or agent who exercised managerial or supervisory responsibility; or
"(3) the employer should have known of the employee's or agent's discriminatory conduct and failed to exercise reasonable diligence to prevent such discriminatory conduct”

Based on this plain language, the court concluded that the Ellerth is unavailable for a defendant under the NYCHRL and therefore will be strictly liable for the conduct of it’s employees. Furthermore, the court noted that the statute states that an employer’s anti-discrimination policy can other go towards the mitigation of civil penalties or punitive damages.

The star of the MTV reality show, "The Hills," is claiming that the creator of the show sexually harassed her. The claim centers on the show's creator inappropriately touching her during a photo shoot promoting the television program.

The issue reiterates the significance that sexual harassment need not just be by words alone. Inappropriate physical conduct such as touching, groping, or grabbing, which is offensive and or unwelcome can constitute sexually harassing behavior.

The full article can be found here.

Former New York Congressman Eric Massa is now facing a complaint of sexual harassment from a male employee. Massa, who recently resigned in connection to an ethics probe, has also been subject to reports of his abrasive behavior including groping individuals and using inappropriate language.

This matter raises several significant issues. The first is that it reflects the increasing number of claims of sexual harassment made by men. The other issue is that sexual harassment and other kinds of employment discrimination are prevalent at even the highest levels of our government.

Additional information related to this issue can be found at http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002408-503544.html

The trial in the sexual harassment and retaliation case brought by former New York 1 News anchor Adele Sammarco has begun in Federal Court in Brooklyn. Ms. Sammarco claims that she was subjected to a hostile, sexually charged environment in which the male employees maintained a "boys's club" at the expense of the female employees.

Ms. Sammarco also claims that she was terminated after she had complained about the sexual conduct of a co-worker. The trial has just begun and individuals have begun to take the stand and testify. We hope to report on the outcome of this case as it moves forward.

Additional information can be found at http://www.1010wins.com/Fmr--NY1-Reporter-Takes-Stand-in-Harassment-Lawsui/6804419

A former employee of a well known real estate company claims the company president was obsessed with employees’ weight and he faced discrimination on the job because he was overweight. Plaintiff alleges that his supervisor made comments that he was “too fat” and his weight had “ballooned” since he began working for the company.

Employees of a major international pharmaceutical company were in federal court in New York City this week for the trial of their class action sexual discrimination case filed on behalf of 5,600 employees.

It is anticipated that employee testimony will reveal how management pressured one employee to get an abortion, and that during training sessions, management encouraged women not to become pregnant while working for the company.

Plaintiffs have requested damages of $54 million in back pay, based on evidence that women in sales positions have been receiving an average of $105 less per month than men in comparable jobs.

The Wall Street Journal reports that since the start of the recession, a growing number of sexual harassment complaints have stemmed from men. Men filed 16.4% of all sexual harassment claims, or 2,094 claims, in fiscal 2009; this was an increase from 15.4% or 1,869 claims in fiscal 2006. Employment lawyers say that the subject of claims have increasingly been “locker room” type behavior which includes vulgar comments and horseplay with sexual connotations.

The increase in male sexual harassment claims coincides with a recession which has affected men more than women. Claims filed by men rose more in some states with higher than average unemployment rates. In states such as Michigan, which was dramatically affected by the recession, claims filed by men increased to 26.6% in 2009 from 16.6% in 2007. California also saw a dramatic increase over the same period of time.

A female psychologist in Long Island, New York has been sued by her former office manager for sexual harassment. The complaint filed in Federal Court in the Eastern District of New York states that the therapist subjected her female office manager to a hostile environment as a result of the pervasive sexually charged comments made to her during her employment.

This case reiterates the fact that sexual harassment need not be perpetrated upon the opposite gender, rather a man can sexually harass another male, and a female can sexually harass another female.