In Smith v. National Grid USA, 2:21-cv-6899 (NJC) (LGD), 2025 WL 1248676 (E.D.N.Y. April 30, 2025), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s race-based hostile work environment claims.
From the decision:
[T]here are numerous genuine disputes of material fact concerning Smith’s hostile work environment claims—under both the higher federal standard and the lower New York State and New York City standards.17 For example, Smith claims, and Martin disputes, that Martin treated him in a harassing manner, including by overloading him with work, badgering him with emails, and acting in a manner Smith found to be physically threatening. (Smith Tr. II 100:23–101:14, 116:20–118:3, 127:22–130:2.) Smith also argues that his co-worker’s act of writing “SHINE BOX” on his lock box contributed to a hostile work environment (although National Grid disputes whether the graffiti had a racially hostile meaning) and that the co-worker (Polumbo) was inadequately disciplined. (D00022 at D00029.)18 These are disputed material facts that a jury must resolve.
There is likewise a triable issue of fact over whether Smith experienced the alleged hostile work environment because of his race. For instance, Smith claims (and Martin disputes) that, when Smith asked him why he was receiving such harsh treatment, Martin responded in a manner that indicated it was because Smith is Black. (Cf. Smith Tr. II 52:7–21; Martin Tr. II 49:2–4, 51:18–25.) The record also includes examples of other Black coworkers experiencing instances of harassment: (1) Desrosiers, another Black employee, filed an internal complaint indicating that he felt threatened by Martin (D00022 at D00029); and (2) a white employee called a Black employee a “monkey,” and Smith believes that the employee was inadequately disciplined[.]
The court further explained that there are triable issues of fact as to whether defendant can be liable for the alleged harassing behavior of plaintiff’s non-supervisory coworkers, specifically, as to whether defendant was negligent in concluding that the co-worker’s act of writing “SHINE BOX” on plaintiff’s lock box was not racially motivated, and whether defendant failed to issue adequate discipline against the person who wrote “SHINE BOX”, as well as the individual who called plaintiff’s Black coworker a “monkey”.