In Friederick v. Passfeed, Inc., Attila Sary et al, 21-cv-2066, 2022 WL 992798 (S.D.N.Y. March 31, 2022), the court, inter alia, held that plaintiff sufficiently alleged “hostile work environment” sexual harassment claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
After explaining the “black letter” law, the court applied it to the facts:
Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that she was subjected to a hostile work environment under all three statutes. Assuming her allegations to be true, Friederick experienced nearly constant harassment from her supervisor Sary over the course of the several months that she worked at Passfeed. Sary’s inappropriate behavior began during Friederick’s first week of work when he asked her whether she was a lesbian, made a comment about her marital status, and asked her if she was going to stab him like his ex-girlfriend. He wrote to her saying he could “feel [him]self doing the wrong thing, but [he couldn’t] help [him]self” before gifting her a necklace. Compl. ¶ 42. Sary gave her flowers, telling her that he felt a “spiritual” and “special connection” with her, adding that he “kn[e]w this would never work, unless [Plaintiff had] daddy issues.” Id. ¶ 43. He repeatedly commented on her appearance. Sary also made a remark Friederick took to be a reference to masturbation. Id. ¶ 50.
Although Friederick kept refusing his advances and asking him to stop, Sary persisted. He nonetheless continued to make inappropriate comments, including asking her about people she had been sexually involved with and remarked that she was “so cute and innocent.” Id. ¶ 54. He consistently asked to buy her lunch, which she consistently refused. He invited her to go on outings outside of the office, including to a spa, to “Central Park with a bottle of tequila,” and to get “mani pedis.” Id. ¶ 55. Sary asked Friederick to “dress up more than [she] usually” did to join him in going to a museum during work hours, pretending to be on a fake meeting. Id. ¶ 57. And finally, he “routinely yelled” “Blow me” and muttered “Fuck you” under his breath at her. Id. ¶ 61.
*7 Friederick has thus alleged that her workplace was permeated with discrimination that was “sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [her] employment and create an abusive working environment.” Littlejohn, 795 F.3d at 320–21. Friederick subjectively perceived this environment to be abusive: she repeatedly expressed how uncomfortable Sary’s behavior made her, causing her to eventually have to work from home because the stress of “be[ing] a victim to [Sary]” was “making [her] sick,” Compl. ¶ 77, and she ultimately sought to file formal complaints against him. Friederick has also adequately alleged that this was an objectively hostile working environment, because a reasonable person would find this constant and unabating behavior to be abusive. Sary’s persistent campaign of trying to get Friederick to go on dates with him, along with his repeated inappropriate sexual comments and unwanted gifting of jewelry and flowers, was sufficiently pervasive to have created an abusive environment.
And, since plaintiff adequately alleged hostile work environment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York State Human Rights Law, she necessarily sufficiently alleged such a claim under the New York City Human Rights Law, which has a “more permissive” standard of liability.