Hostile Work Environment Claim Properly Dismissed, 2nd Dept. Holds

In Niemotko v. Mount St. Mary Coll., 2025 NY Slip Op 04658 (N.Y. App. Div. 2 Dept. Aug. 13, 2025), the court, inter alia, affirmed the summary judgment dismissal of plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim asserted under the New York State Human Rights Law.

From the decision:

A plaintiff claiming a hostile work environment animated by discrimination in violation of the [Human Rights Law] must show that the workplace 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 working environment” (Reichman v City of New York, 179 AD3d at 1118; see Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d at 310). “To determine whether a hostile work environment exists, a court must consider all the circumstances, including the frequency of the discriminatory conduct, its severity, whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance, and whether it unreasonably interfered with an employee’s work performance” (Reichman v City of New York, 179 AD3d at 1118; see Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d at 310-311).

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action asserted by McGuiness alleging the existence of a hostile work environment by demonstrating that the conduct of which McGuiness complained was either not gender related or not severe or pervasive enough to create an objectively hostile or abusive work environment (see Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d at 311; Reichman v City of New York, 179 AD3d at 1118). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the alleged discriminatory conduct complained of was gender related or sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute a hostile work environment under the Human Rights Law.

The court also upheld the dismissal of plaintiff’s claims for constructive discharge, retaliation, and gender discrimination.

Share This: