In Shin v. The New York City Dept. of Educ., No. 155437/2018, 2023 WL 6465000 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Oct. 03, 2023), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s gender discrimination claim asserted under the New York City (but not the New York State) Human Rights Law.
From the decision:
Here, Shin alleges the following with respect to her hostile work environment claim: (1) on September 11, 2014, Binet and Morrison requested lesson plans while Shin was out on leave for an emergency surgery due to a miscarriage; (2) Binet yelled at her in closed meetings on October 28, 2014 and February 6, 2015; (3) Binet allowed other female teachers he was allegedly romantically involved with to lead staff meetings; (4) Binet negatively evaluated her during her observations from school years 2014-2015, 2015-2016 and 2017-2018; (5) Binet denied her promotional positions during his time as her supervisor from 2014; (6) Shin taught less honors classes under Binet’s leadership; (7) Shin’s classroom assignments were less than desirable under Binet’s leadership; (8) on or about February 2015, Binet denied Shin a book request; (9) Binet harassed her by conducting an excessive number of informal observations; (10) Binet and Morrison expressed anger towards her for not having students present during the tutoring hour while her male coworkers were not put under the same requirement; (11) on or about October 2, 2017, Morrison orchestrated a plan with a student to have Shin formally disciplined; and (12) the English department under Binet’s leadership as assistant principal was permeated with a gender bias, in that women in the department were treated differently than the men in the department.
Giannousis alleges the following incidents with Binet and Morrison in the 2014-2015 school year before her departure from Hillcrest Highschool in June of 2015: (1) a late night text message from Binet on October 14, 2014, asking what a night in the life of Giannousis looks like; (2) negative evaluations for the 2014/2015 school year; (3) excessive informal observations the 2014/2015 school year; (4) denial of promotional opportunities; (5) reduction of honors classes during the 2014-2015 school year; and (6) a collection of allegations of rude or offensive remarks.
The court concluded that, “taken as a whole, the facts alleged give rise to an inference that defendants’ behavior was motivated because of gender” and that “issues of fact exist for the jury as to whether plaintiffs Shin and Giannousis were treated less well because of their gender in violation of NYCHRL.”