In Woo v. The City of New York, No. 161109/2022, 2025 WL 65869 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Jan. 8, 2025), the court, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s quid pro quo and hostile work environment sexual harassment claims.
From the decision:
The issue in a quid pro quo sexual harassment case brought under the State Human Rights Law is whether one or more employment decisions are linked to unwelcome sexual conduct” (Franco v Hyatt Corp., 189 AD3d 569, 569 [1st Dept 2020]). “Sexual harassment occurs when such unwelcome sexual conduct is the basis, either explicitly or implicitly, for employment decisions affecting compensation or the terms, condition or privileges of employment” (id. [citations omitted]). “An employer can also be held liable for a hostile work environment when it encouraged or acquiesced in the unwelcome sexual conduct by an employee or subsequently condoned the offending behavior” (id. 189 AD3d at 569-70, citing Forrest, 3 NY3d at 311). “Proof of condonation and acquiescence is not necessary where discriminatory conduct is perpetrated by a high-level managerial employee or someone sufficiently elevated in the employer’s business organization to be viewed as its proxy” (id. [citation omitted]). “Under the City Human Rights Law, gender discrimination rests on the broader consideration of whether a plaintiff has been treated less well than other employees because of his/her gender” (id. [citations omitted]). “Whether brought under the State or the City Human Rights Law, the claim will not succeed if the offending actions are no more than petty slights or trivial inconveniences” (id. citing, inter alia, Kim v Goldberg, Weprin, Finkel, Goldstein, LLP, 120 AD3d 18, 28 [1st Dept 2104] and PJI 9:5, 9:5A).
Here, Plaintiff’s difficulties with Sahni started with sexual harassment. After he was promoted to Administrative Lieutenant in May 2021, Sahni offered to help Plaintiff, and later called to tell her that he could get her out of “less popular details,” if she went out for a drink with him behind the back of her friend Kaur (Complaint ¶¶ 26-29). Plaintiff further alleges that, when she “refused to get a drink with him alone,” Sahni immediately began placing her in “punitive assignments” (id. ¶ 39) and that after she complained about these assignments, Sahni told her “I know what you are doing,” referring to her complaints, and immediately increased the number of punitive assignments she received (id. ¶¶ 85-86). Plaintiff has adequately pleaded a cause of action for quid pro quo sexual harassment against Defendants.
The court further held that plaintiff has also adequately pleaded a cause of action for a hostile work environment against Defendants, “based on the discriminatory conduct of the City’s proxies, Sahni and Wise.”