In Olivier v. County of Rockland et al, 15-CV-8337, 2018 WL 401187 (SDNY Jan. 11, 2018), the court, inter alia, dismissed plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim, on the ground that it was based on time-barred conduct.
The court began by observing: “Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint appears to rehash— at times in a verbatim fashion—the same time-barred disparate treatment allegations presented in his initial Complaint by rebranding the exact same acts as now amounting to a hostile work environment.”
After summarizing the legal requirements of a hostile work environment claim, Judge Karas concluded:
Title VII [of the Civil Rights Act of 1964] precludes recovery for discrete acts of discrimination or retaliation that occur outside the statutory time period, even if other acts of discrimination occurred within the statutory time period. [] Here, Plaintiff has pointed exclusively to discrete actions taken by Defendants and their agents, including the decisions of his superiors to discipline him for what he alleges are “baseless disciplinary charges,” [] and that white employees were not subject to the same charges[]. Yet, such actions would only constitute, discrete, adverse employment decisions concerning promotions, discipline, and appraisal, and about employer criticism. [] Ultimately, hostile work environment is not the proper vehicle for such claims. … Therefore, Plaintiff has failed in his effort to repackage his time-barred disparate treatment claims into claims of a hostile work environment.