Hostile Work Environment Sufficiently Alleged; Allegations Include Assignment to Unsuitable Workspace

In Vannier v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Services et al, 2025 WL 345807 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2025), the court, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In sum, plaintiff – a transgender man who worked as a corrections officer – alleges that as plaintiff started transitioning from female to male, he began to experience hostility and abuse from his coworkers and supervisors relating to his gender identity.

The court summarizes the pertinent facts pertaining to this claim as follows:

In 2018, Vannier formally announced that he identified as a man at work. Compl. ¶ 2. But in response, his co-workers refused his requests to use male pronouns and intentionally misgendered him for the remainder of his tenure with NYSDOCCS. Id. ¶ 4. Vannier’s co-workers and supervisors at GMCF taunted him using his prior female pronouns and laughed at him when this upset him.3 Id. ¶ 5. And the abuse was not solely verbal. Id. On one occasion, plaintiff’s supervisors and co-workers vandalized his locker, defacing it with derogatory graffiti that referred to plaintiff by name and filling it with spit and chewing tobacco. Id. ¶ 6.

In 2018, Vannier was also physically threatened and, on at least one occasion, chased up a flight of stairs by another NYSDOCCS employee while co-workers and supervisors continued to taunt and ridicule him about his gender identity. Compl. ¶ 7. Not only that, but plaintiff’s gender transition was disclosed to the incarcerated male population at GMCF, further jeopardizing his safety. Id. ¶ 8.

Beyond the day-to-day hostility Vannier faced at GMCF following his transition, he began to struggle at work. Compl. ¶ 9. After presenting as a male, plaintiff was denied a job opportunity after a supervisor told him that he was not a “real man.” Id. Thereafter, plaintiff received an unfavorable employment evaluation after he protested the intentional misgendering perpetrated by his supervisors. Id. ¶ 9. All the while, plaintiff’s supervisors assigned him tasks that were demeaning, dangerous, or both.

Applying the law, the court explained:

[P]laintiffs bringing Title VII claims based upon discrete discriminatory or retaliatory acts must file them within the appropriate time period set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(e)(1). Morgan, 536 U.S. at 122. However, there are exceptions to this rule.

One such exception is a claim for a hostile work environment: under Title VII, a hostile work environment is one which is “permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive work environment.” Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993). Unlike claims based on discrete acts of discrimination or retaliation, hostile work environment claims are often comprised of a “mosaic” of acts, that, in the aggregate, alter the conditions of the plaintiff’s work environment. Id. Where a plaintiff brings a hostile work environment claim premised on a series of acts that are part of the same ongoing, discriminatory employment practice and at least one act falls inside of the statutory period, the reviewing court may consider all of the acts. Morgan, 536 U.S. at 122 (emphasis added); King v. Aramark Services, 96 F.4th 546, 561 (2d Cir. 2024).

Upon review, Vannier’s hostile work environment claims under Title VII are timely. Plaintiff has alleged that he suffered a series of discriminatory acts of intimidation, ridicule, and insults that occurred prior to December 14, 2021. See Compl. ¶¶ 1–172. Plaintiff also alleges that he suffered at least one other act took place on or after December 14, 2021 when defendants re-assigned plaintiff to an unsuitable workspace littered with feces and mold without any usable furniture, bathroom, or running water. Id. ¶¶ 138–139. Thus, plaintiff has alleged that defendants subjected him to an ongoing discriminatory employment practice that went on from at least 2018 until 2022. As such, the Court may consider the entirety of plaintiff’s allegations as they constitute a continuing violation. See Morgan, 536 U.S. at 122.

Based on this, and considering all of plaintiff’s factual allegations, the court found that plaintiff plausibly alleged that he endured a hostile work environment, and that denial of defendants’ motion to dismiss that claim was warranted.

Share This: