In Ahmad v. City of New York, No. 160768/2024, 2025 WL 1582159 (N.Y. Sup Ct, Ne York County June 04, 2025), the court, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on her hostile work environment sexual harassment and religious discrimination claims.
Its decision was based on the findings reached at an NYPD disciplinary trial, which, according to the court, resolve every element of plaintiff’s claims:
1. Protected Status and Unequal Treatment. Plaintiff is a Muslim woman, belonging to two statutorily protected categories: sex/gender and religion. Captain Pagan repeatedly made unwelcome sexual advances–quid pro quo propositions, unconsented hand-rubbing, graphic sexual remarks–and disparaging comments about her Muslim faith. Those acts satisfy the NYCHRL’s threshold for “hostile work environment,” as such conduct plainly treats Plaintiff “less well” because of her sex and religion. (SOF ¶ 20–24.) No other inference is reasonable.
2. Supervisor Status and Strict Liability. Pagan was Plaintiff’s direct supervisor; as such, he had the authority to grant or deny her shift changes, time off, discipline, and other workplace “privileges.” (SOF ¶ 5–7.) His quid pro quo offer–“sit on my lap and I’ll warn and admonish”–clearly linked sexual favors to workplace decisions. NYCHRL § 8-107(13)(b) thus makes the City strictly liable for his misconduct. (see Forrest, 3 NY3d at 307–08). The City cannot avoid liability by showing it had policies or training programs; under the NYCHRL, an employer is “responsible for the offensive acts of its supervisor, even if the employer is unaware of the supervisor’s misconduct” (id. at 307 n 3).
3. Hostile Work Environment–Sexual Harassment. Pagan’s repeated, unsolicited propositions to Plaintiff–both in person and in text–established a hostile environment. Judge Adler found these comments to be unambiguously unwanted. In Dept. Ex. 1 (video), he can be heard offering to resolve her disciplinary case in exchange for sitting on his lap. (Exh. J at 14–15.) In Dept. Ex. 2 (video), he again asked her to sit next to him to discuss the same CD, followed by a remark about “blowing him a kiss.” (id. at 15.) In various text messages (Dept. Ex. 7), he demanded “pies” in exchange for other benefits, e.g., “If ur dressed like a Muslim today take a picture and show me,” and “I hope this doesn’t affect you and cause you to go hungry today.” (Exh. J at 5–6; SOF ¶ 20–24.) Judge Adler’s credibility findings–“Bowman was in a vulnerable position . . . . I credit Bowman’s testimony that she was merely playing along . . . .” (Exh. J at 13–14)–are insulated from further dispute (see Zuckerman, 49 NY2d at 562, supra).
4. Hostile Work Environment–Religious Discrimination. On July 20, 2021, Pagan texted that Plaintiff–dressed in Muslim attire for Eid–should “take a picture and show me,” and later quipped, “I hope this doesn’t affect you and cause you to go hungry today.” (SOF ¶ 20–24; Exh. J at 5–6, 17–18.) Judge Adler concluded these statements disparaged her Muslim faith and “underscored how poor was his judgment, and how egregious were his actions.” (Exh. J at 17–18.) Such religious derogation, directed at a subordinate, plainly satisfies NYCHRL § 8-107(13)(b).
5. Unwanted Physical Contact. Between February 2020 and July 2021, Pagan repeatedly placed his hand over Plaintiff’s when handing her money or a pen; on one occasion, he briefly rubbed her hand, again in his office. (SOF ¶ 24; Exh. J at 15–17.) Judge Adler credited Plaintiff’s testimony that these touches made her “very uncomfortable,” and rejected Pagan’s claim they were “friendly.” (Exh. J at 16–17.) That “unwanted physical contact” further exacerbated the hostile work environment.
The court concluded that, since plaintiff “has established that Pagan’s sexually and religiously harassing conduct was both unwanted and harmful – and because he had supervisory authority – NYCHRL § 8-107(13)(b) renders the City strictly liable as a matter of law” and that “[n]o reasonable jury could rule otherwise.”