In Ciotti v. City of New York et al, 23 Civ. 10279 (ER), 2025 WL 308022 (S.D.N.Y. January 27, 2025), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
After summarizing the black-letter law, the court applied it to the facts as follows:
Ciotti alleges that the FAC is replete with adverse actions that support her hostile work environment claim. Doc. 25 at 21. For example, she alleges that the NYPD ignored her complaints of harassment, actively dissuaded her from filing more complaints with subtle threats, and, when she did complain, used various means, including the counseling services, to cow her or subject her to intolerable treatment. Id. at 10 (citing FAC ¶¶ 83–85, 91, 116, 122, 127, 130–35, 138–39, 151–55, 158–60, 163–64, 166).
The City asserts that all of their arguments relating to Ciotti’s Title VII and ADA adverse employment action claims also apply to her hostile work environment claim. Doc. 26 at 6 n.3. However, they do not address Ciotti’s pre-January 26, 2023 claims, which the Court may consider in its analysis of the hostile work environment claim. See Docs. 23 and 26.
The Court finds that Ciotti has sufficiently alleged a work environment permeated with discriminatory harassment or intimidation that was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of her working environment. Ciotti was repeatedly sexually assaulted and raped, was subjected to undesirable shift changes that affected her ability to care for her child, and, when she complained about the harassment: was transferred to unfavorable assignments that were generally thought of as “discipline” amongst her peers, was ignored by Dr. Lamstein when she sought help, was subjected to offensive comments by supervisors, was dissuaded and shut down whenever she was brave enough to seek help, and overall was subjected to behavior that unreasonably interfered with her work performance. FAC ¶¶ 82, 86, 127, 152, 155, 156; see also Howley, 217 F.3d at 154. Further, Ciotti sufficiently alleges that she specifically told numerous supervisors and other employees about the harassment who did nothing about it. FAC ¶¶ 38, 60, 63–65, 71–73, 81–82, 90, 96, 119, 122, 124, 127, 136. The Court finds that, considering the totality of the circumstances, Ciotti has sufficiently alleged a hostile work environment claim at this juncture.
The court did, however, dismiss plaintiff’s discrimination claim (under a disparate impact theory), since plaintiff did not plead sufficient facts to prove discriminatory intent (as to sex) or but-for causation (as to disability).