In Krause v. Kelehan, 17-CV-1045, 2018 WL 2021484 (N.D.N.Y. April 26, 2018), the court – applying the “continuing violation doctrine” – held that plaintiff sufficiently alleged a timely hostile work environment claim against the defendants.[1]The court also held, inter alia, that plaintiff’s discrimination claims survive dismissal.
From the decision:
Like Plaintiff’s discrimination claim, her hostile work environment claim is based largely on Kelahan’s conduct during her employment. The Municipal Defendants argue that this “claim should be dismissed to the extent it pertains to any discrete act occurring prior to April 22, 2016.” Municipal Defs.’ Mem. at 14. Plaintiff invokes the continuing violation doctrine and states that, because some of Kelahan’s conduct giving rise to her hostile work environment claim occurred after April 22, “the entire period of the hostile work environment may be considered for purposes of determining liability.” Municipal Defs.’ Resp. at 15. The Court agrees with Plaintiff. She alleges that Kelahan visited and pestered her at “[her] building” on a near-daily basis. PAC ¶ 9. During these visits, Kelahan “would comment on Plaintiff’s role as a mother … and claim her family was a ‘distraction.’ ” Id. He also “undermined [Plaintiff’s] authority on a regular basis” by, among other things, telling Plaintiff’s “secretary that she ‘wanted to fire her.’ ” Id. ¶ 11. Plaintiff describes this conduct as occurring persistently throughout her employment. Therefore, she plausibly alleges that this conduct occurred between April 22, 2016 and her October 2016 termination. Because some of Kelahan’s alleged conduct giving rise to the hostile work environment claim is timely, the continuing violation doctrine applies and Plaintiff’s allegations of Kelahan’s pre-April 22, 2016 conduct is timely.
| ↩1 | The court also held, inter alia, that plaintiff’s discrimination claims survive dismissal. |
|---|