In Jemmott v. Roosevelt Island Operating Corp. of the State of New York, No. 160867/2016, 2023 WL 3386763 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County May 11, 2023), the court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claims of sexual harassment, retaliation, and constructive discharge.
From the decision:
The court finds defendant has fallen far short of making out a prima facie case for summary judgment and that there are many questions of material fact and credibility determinations which must await trial.
Issues of material fact exist on the matter of RIOC’s vicarious liability for the discriminatory action of its former employee, Bryan and on the matter of RIOC’s direct liability for the consequences of Bryan’s conduct, as there is evidence in the record from which a trier of fact could determine that RIOC’s Director of Transportation, Opperman, aided and abetted Bryan’s discrimination by taking affirmative steps to knowingly hire a male sexual harasser and hide his history of sexual harassment.
Issues of material fact exist on the matter of RIOC’s liability for allowing and fostering a sexually hostile work environment after Plaintiff told Opperman she was physically attacked.
Issues of material fact exist on the matter of whether Plaintiff’s work hours were diminished immediately upon becoming a sexual harassment whistleblower as a deliberate act of gender discrimination and retaliation. RIOC admits Plaintiff’s hours decreased, but whether their nondiscriminatory explanation is valid or refuted by the record should be determined by a jury. Plaintiff alleges, the drop in hours came abruptly and immediately upon issuing of the complaint, and that she was the only part-time bus operator to experience such a drop.
Issues of material fact exist on the matter of whether Plaintiff became the subject of exclusive, targeted scrutiny and discipline immediately upon becoming a sexual harassment whistleblower as a deliberate act of gender discrimination and retaliation, and whether Plaintiff was constructively discharged from RIOC.
Having denied defendant’s motion, the court directed the parties to appear for a pretrial conference, at which the parties should be prepared to select a firm trial date, provide the court with a witness list, and discuss a schedule for in limine motions.