In Francesco Roberto Sebastiani v. Brooklyn Hospital Center et al, No. 19-CV-253 (EK)(ST), 2026 WL 820695 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2026), the court, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s sex-based hostile work environment claim.
In sum, plaintiff alleges that his ex-girlfriend sexually harassed him both during and outside of working hours.
In finding that there is a genuine factual dispute about whether the behavior created a hostile work environment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the court explained:
Sebastiani has adduced sufficient evidence of a hostile work environment to survive summary judgment. Much of Lee’s alleged harassment is appropriately characterized as the behavior of a “jilted lover seek[ing] retribution through actions that [were] not gender … -based.” Stepheny v. Brooklyn Hebrew Sch. for Special Child., 356 F. Supp. 2d 248, 263 (E.D.N.Y. 2005); see also Conklin v. Cnty. of Suffolk, 859 F. Supp. 2d 415, 428 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (“[C]ourts often find that harassment by a co-worker is not … based on sex when it arises from a failed relationship.”). But Sebastiani also alleges that Lee “grabbed” both his “buttocks” and his “genitals” during surgery (and attempted to do so a second time), thereby engaging in “one of the most severe forms of sexual harassment.” Redd v. N.Y. Div. of Parole, 678 F.3d 166, 177 (2d Cir. 2012); see Sebastiani Dep. 685:19-686:10, ECF No. 178-24.
Courts in this circuit have repeatedly held that “[a] single incident of contact with an intimate body part is sufficient to establish a hostile work environment claim.” Dillon v. Ned Mgmt., Inc., 85 F. Supp. 3d 639, 656 (E.D.N.Y. 2015); see also Conlan v. Liberty Mut. Grp., Inc., No. 23-CV-8947, 2024 WL 4792112, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2024) (collecting cases). And Sebastiani’s testimony is evidence that such contact occurred. See Sebastiani Dep. 685:19-686:10, ECF No. 178-24. While Sebastiani relies almost entirely upon his own testimony to establish that the groping incident occurred,7 the testimony is not so “contradictory or rife with inconsistencies” that it is “facially implausible.” Fincher v. Depository Tr. & Clearing Corp., 604 F.3d 712, 726 (2d Cir. 2010). That no one else in the operating room witnessed the harassment, see Pl.’s 56.1 ¶ 62, may undermine Sebastiani’s testimony. But such credibility determinations are reserved for a jury.
The court next held that the question of whether the harassing behavior can be imputed to the hospital is likewise a question for the jury.
Having reached this conclusion as to Title VII, the court necessarily reached the same conclusion as to the New York City Human Rights Law, noting that “[b]y necessity, conduct that meets the standard for a hostile work environment under Title VII … must meet the standard for a hostile work environment under the NYCHRL.”