In Hatcher v. New York City Department of Education, 23-cv-3510 (NRM) (LB), 2024 WL 4333643 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2024), the court, inter alia, held that plaintiff sufficiently alleged a race-based hostile work environment 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.
As to Title VII, the court explained:
As an initial matter, the Court notes that DOE cannot be held liable for Plaintiff’s alleged unanswered requests for heat in her classroom because she makes no allegations that DOE was aware of this misconduct or failed to remedy it. However, Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that DOE is strictly liable for Forman’s and Koswener-Bochbot’s conduct as they acted as Plaintiff’s supervisors. Plaintiff has also plausibly alleged that DOE is liable for the December 4, 2019 incident in which Malachowsky allegedly screamed at Plaintiff, Compl. at 6, and the December 18, 2020 incident in which Malachowsky allegedly spread false rumors about Plaintiff, id. at 8, because she filed complaints about the incidents and no action was taken.
Plaintiff has stated a hostile work environment claim. She has alleged: (1) that Malachowsky screamed at her, prompting her to file a claim of racial discrimination, id. at 6; (2) that Forman then responded to a remark Plaintiff made at a round-table discussion about her perceptions of racial justice at the school by suddenly announcing in front of Plaintiff’s colleagues that her discrimination complaint had been dismissed, id. at 8; (3) that, after telling Forman that she felt his conduct at the meeting was a form of subtle racism, Forman’s behavior towards Plaintiff changed, id.; (4) that Forman and Koswener-Bochbot then improperly gave her a U-rating for the first time in her career, id. at 9; and (5) that Koswener-Bochbot gave away Plaintiff’s per session employment opportunities to a newly hired colleague who, unlike Plaintiff, was only working at the school part time. Id.
These allegations do “not rest on an isolated incident or stray remarks, but on a pattern of abusive activity of a quality and quantity that a reasonable employee would find worsened the conditions of his employment.” Bonilla v. City of New York, No. 18-cv-12142, 2019 WL 6050757, at *16 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 15, 2019). Moreover, as previously noted in the context of Plaintiff’s discrimination claim, Plaintiff has done enough to establish she was subject to a hostile work environment based, “at least in part,” on her race.
As to plaintiff’s claim under the NYSHRL:
Plaintiff alleges that Forman failed to investigate claims against Malachowsky, made comments about Plaintiff’s dismissed discrimination complaint at the round-table discussion, and gave Plaintiff an undeserved U-rating. Compl. at 8–9. Plaintiff further alleges that Koswener-Bochbot participated in the decision to give Plaintiff a U-rating, took away Plaintiff’s per session work opportunities, and forced Plaintiff to go to an after-school meeting. Id. at 9–10.
By alleging that Forman and Koswener-Bochbot took actions that, inter alia, lost Plaintiff pensionable income, id., Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that Forman and Koswener-Bochbot subjected her to inferior terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. And, as discussed above, because Plaintiff has alleged that other similarly situated employees who are white where treated differently, she has plausibly alleged that she was treated differently because of her race for purposes of her SHRL claim of race-based discrimination.
And finally, as to the city law, the court held that since plaintiff need only allege that she “has been treated less well than other employees because of” a protected characteristic, the fact that plaintiff’s state-law claim survives dismissal warranted the same result as to her city-law claim.