In Schneidermesser v. NYU Grossman School of Medicine, 21 Civ. 7179 (DEH), 2024 WL 4135701 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2024), the court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s age-based hostile work environment claims asserted under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and New York State Human Rights Law.
After summarizing the black-letter law, the court applied it to the facts as follows:
As a threshold matter, Plaintiff does not expressly state a hostile work environment claim in her pleadings. However, while the Court acknowledges that Plaintiff might have stated her claim of hostile work environment harassment more artfully, the essential elements of the charge do appear in the complaint. Defendant does not argue that it would suffer prejudice by the Court’s consideration of this claim …, and the Court does not find any. In these circumstances, Plaintiff’s failure explicitly to plead a hostile work environment claim does not preclude the Court from considering that issue on summary judgment.
It is undisputed that at least some of Plaintiff’s co-workers called Plaintiff “Old Lady,” and “Grandma.” See Golomb Dep. Tr. 97:2-101:16, ECF No. 64-3; Dufficy Dep. Tr. 184:16-184:25. Plaintiff additionally testified that when she used the bathroom, a co-worker would “tell[ ] [her] to hurry up out, old lady, why are you in there so long.” Schneidermesser Dep. Tr. 35:14-19. Plaintiff testified that, as a result, she “[c]ouldn’t even go to the bathroom.” Id. at 62:10-11. Additionally, Plaintiff testified that Dufficy and at least one other co-worker left Post-it notes on Plaintiff’s computer keyboard that said, “Time to retire, Old Lady,” “Hurry up and retire already, Grandma,” and “Hearing Aid????” Id. at 62:16-63:6; Compl. ¶ 9. Plaintiff stated that this was “so overwhelming to [her]” that she “didn’t even want to come into work.” Schneidermesser Dep. Tr. 63:15-16. Dufficy and other co-workers made these remarks “[o]n a regular basis.” Id. at 32:10. The record reflects factual disputes over whether Plaintiff also referred to herself by these terms, the frequency with which such comments were made and by whom, and whether the remarks were intended as terms of endearment rather than as expressions of hostility.
Resolving all ambiguities and drawing all inferences in [Plaintiff’s] favor, [the Court] cannot say as a matter of law that these incidents could not amount to a claim of a hostile work environment. Williams v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth., 61 F.4th 55, 76 (2d Cir. 2023). For example, a reasonable jury could find that Plaintiff’s fear of being subjected to discriminatory treatment while, e.g., using her keyboard or going to the restroom, made it more challenging for her to carry out her job. Regardless, these are determinations for the jury, not the judge, to make.
[Citations, bracketing, quotation marks omitted.]
Accordingly, the court concluded that “[b]ecause Plaintiff has raised triable issues of material fact regarding her hostile work environment claim, her claim survives under the ADEA and NYSHRL” and her hostile work environment claims survive defendant’s motion for summary judgment.