In Girardi v. Ferrari Express, Inc. et al, 220-CV-4298 (VSB), 2023 WL 2744027 (S.D.N.Y. March 31, 2023), the court held that plaintiff sufficiently alleged claims of sexual harassment, and thus denied defendant’s motion to dismiss.
As to plaintiff’s claim against individual defendant Fabio Ravera, defendant Ferrari Express’s general manager and chief financial officer, the court explained:
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Ravera continuously sexually harassed her in violation of the NYSHRL and NYCHRL. She alleges a sustained campaign of unwanted sexual advances and touches by Ravera. According to the complaint, Ravera’s misconduct started from their very first meeting, and escalated with multiple verbal propositions to Plaintiff for sex and suggestive, unwanted, touching of Plaintiff both when they were alone and in front of other employees. (FAC ¶¶ 25, 35, 44.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Ravera continued his sexual overtures, despite multiple rejections and her protests.
Construing the facts in the pleading as true, I find that Plaintiff has stated a claim for hostile work environment. These facts suggest harassment “of such quality or quantity that a reasonable employee would find the conditions of her employment altered for the worse.” Pantane, 508 F.3d at 113. Other courts in this circuit have found that alleging a continuous pattern of overt and unwanted solicitation of sexual intercourse can sustain a hostile work environment claim. See, e.g., Rice v. Smithtown Volkswagen, 321 F. Supp. 3d 375, 388 (E.D.N.Y. 2018); Conforti v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., 201 F.Supp.3d 278, 305–06 (E.D.N.Y. 2016). In addition, other courts have rejected motions to dismiss hostile work environment claims where Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant subjected her to unwanted touching of a sexual nature in the workplace. See, e.g, Parra v. City of White Plains, 48 F. Supp. 3d 542, 547, 552 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (finding that plaintiff’s allegations that defendant subjected her to unwanted sexual touching, including rubbing her hands, arms, shoulders, neck, feet, head and hair were sufficient to plead a hostile work environment); Johnson v. J. Walter Thompson U.S.A., LLC, 224 F. Supp. 3d 296, 308 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (finding that plaintiff’s allegations that defendant subjected her to unwanted sexual touching, including rubbing her shoulders and stroking her face, were sufficient to plead a hostile work environment). Here, the Complaint contains multiple allegations of sexual misconduct — regular and continued unwelcome sexual advances, and unwanted touching of a sexual nature. Defendant Ravera’s conduct can reasonably be construed to contribute to an overall environment of gender hostility. See Terry, 336 F.3d at 148 (“In determining whether a hostile environment exists, we must look at the ‘totality of the circumstances.’ ”). For this reason, I find that the Plaintiff has also plausibly alleged a hostile work environment claim.
The court further denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims against defendant Ferrari Express, since plaintiff sufficiently alleged that Ravena was a “supervisor” for purposes of establishing employer liability under Title VII (and that that the harassment ultimately culminated in her constructive termination), and “exercised managerial or supervisory responsibility” within the meaning of the NYCHRL.