In Breiding v. High Hopes Films, LLC, No. 152385/2023, 2025 WL 1994466 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County July 16, 2025), the court, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claims of hostile work environment, sexual harassment, and gender discrimination claims asserted under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.
From the decision:
On the merits, issues of fact preclude dismissing Plaintiff’s New York State and City Human Rights Laws claims. The diametrically opposed narratives require a jury to assess credibility and determine whether Plaintiff was subjected to a hostile work environment. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the non-movant, the moment Plaintiff objected to kissing him, Mr. Piliere allegedly called her a b ___, icy, cold, stiff and continued to try to kiss her. Mr. Piliere continued commenting on Plaintiff’s refusal to kiss him in the following years. Mr. Piliere told Plaintiff “ME TOO aside [you’re] not Aniston and [you] need to perform what the writer wants” (NYSCEF Doc. 48). These actions and statements, amongst others, and their alleged severity, could allow a jury to find Plaintiff was subjected to a hostile work environment (see e.g. Bateman v Montefiore Medical Center, 183 AD3d 489, 490 [1st Dept 2020]; Sims v Trustees of Columbia University, 168 AD3d 622, 623 [1st Dept 2019]).
Although Defendants argue Plaintiff was not subject to a work environment this is in dispute given the ongoing promotion of High Hopes 2 and the planning of High Hopes 3. While Plaintiff may not have been on set with Mr. Piliere, the two were in frequent contact related to the films that formed their employment relationship. Therefore, the motion for summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims is denied (see also Crookendale v New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, 175 AD3d 1132, 1132 [1st Dept 2019]).
Similar issues of fact preclude dismissal of Plaintiff’s sexual harassment and gender-based discrimination claims (Williams v New York City Housing Auth., 61 AD3d 62, 76 [1st Dept 2009]). Just as a jury may find Plaintiff was subjected to a hostile work environment because she was a woman, so too a jury might find Plaintiff was treated less well and replaced because she was a woman who rejected Mr. Piliere’s alleged overtures (Suri v Grey Global Group, Inc., 164 AD3d 108, 114-16 [1st Dept 2018]; Hernandez v Kaisman, 103 AD3d 106 [1st Dept 2012]).
Issues of fact exist as to whether Plaintiff was retaliated against for refusing to kiss Mr. Piliere. Given the diametrically opposing narratives of events, it is for a jury to decide whether Mr. Piliere retaliated against Plaintiff by telling a film festival audience she refused to kiss him, damaging her professional reputation by allegedly spreading a rumor that he and Plaintiff were involved sexually, and by replacing her for allegedly not attending a filming rescheduled on short notice (see, e.g. Bond v New York City Health and Hosps. Corp., 215 AD3d 469, 470 [1st Dept 2023]; La Porta v Alacra, Inc., 142 AD3d 851, 853 [1st Dept 2016]).
Based on this, the court held that plaintiff’s New York State and City Human Rights Laws claims survive.