In Daniel v. AutoZone, Inc. (NDNY May 6, 2015), the Northern District of New York denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s race-based hostile work environment claims against the individual defendants under 42 USC 1981 and the New York State Human Rights Law.
Here is the applicable law:
[A]n individual defendant may be liable under section 1981. In order to make out a claim for individual liability under § 1981, a plaintiff must demonstrate some affirmative link to causally connect the actor with the discriminatory action …. [P]ersonal liability under section 1981 must be predicated on the actor’s personal involvement. Personal involvement, within the meaning of this concept, includes not only direct participation in the alleged violation but also gross negligence in the supervision of subordinates who committed the wrongful acts and failure to take action upon receiving information that [such acts] are occurring.
In denying summary judgment to defendants, the court explained:
Daniel has proffered evidence from which the factfinder could conclude that both Savage [plaintiff’s direct supervisor] and Bush [the district manager for the region which included the store where plaintiff worked] knew of the allegedly hostile work environment, yet fail[ed] to take action upon receiving [this] information, and there is thus a question of fact that requires resolution by a jury. By way of example, Daniel testified that she complained to Savage “about being called a black ass” nearly “every time that [she] worked with [him],” and that she complained “so many times that [Savage] would say that all [she] do[es] is complain,” and urged her to “keep [her] mouth closed.” Daniel further testified that she often complained to Savage about being told her “kind is not welcome here” and about being called other racially-charged names.
It should be noted that the court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s race/gender discrimination and retaliation claims, as well as her hostile work environment claim against the entity defendant (due to plaintiff’s failure to avail herself of the company’s anti-harassment procedures). The decision is instructive on those issues as well.