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.