In Yu v. City of New York, Administration for Children’s Services, 2020 WL 521863 (2d Cir. Feb. 3, 2020) (Summary Order), the court held, inter alia, that plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim was not (contrary to the district court’s conclusion) time-barred as a matter of law.
Initially, the court upheld the district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s disparate treatment and retaliation claims:
The district court also properly concluded that part of Yu’s Title VII and ADEA disparate treatment and retaliation claims were time-barred. As a precondition to bringing suit in federal court, a plaintiff must first pursue available administrative remedies and file a timely complaint with the EEOC within 300 days of an unlawful employment practice. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e), (f); 29 U.S.C. § 626(d). Yu filed her EEOC charge on July 25, 2017, so any claims based on discrete acts occurring prior to September 28, 2016 were untimely.
It reached the opposite conclusion, however, as to plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim, noting that “[f]or hostile work environment claims, only one alleged act must fall within the statute of limitations, and so long as that act is part of the same unlawful practice as the earlier acts, the entire period of hostile environment may be considered.”
Here, the court held that the district court failed to account for plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim in its timeliness analysis, and therefore remanded as to that claim.