96 F.4th 546
2d Cir.2024Background
- Kristen King, the plaintiff, held leadership roles for Aramark—primarily managing operations in Virginia and West Virginia, but also sometimes working remotely from New York.
- King reported two years of hostile, gender-based mistreatment from her supervisor, Griffith Thomas, including public disparagement, unfair reviews, exclusion from meetings, micromanagement, and body shaming.
- King alleged that similarly situated male employees were treated more favorably and were not subjected to the same scrutiny or mistreatment.
- King was terminated after a purported minor reimbursement policy violation soon after making complaints about discrimination and her supervisor's conduct.
- King sued under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and Title VII for sex discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation; the district court dismissed her NYSHRL claims and granted summary judgment to Aramark on the Title VII claims.
- On appeal, the court affirmed dismissal of the NYSHRL claims but vacated and remanded on the Title VII claims, holding there were genuine disputes of material fact regarding discrimination, retaliation, and timeliness under the continuing violation doctrine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| NYSHRL jurisdiction | Work-from-home in NY connected discrimination to NY | King’s employment and discrimination were based in VA/WV, not NY | NYSHRL claim dismissed – alleged impact in NY was tangential, not sufficient |
| NYSHRL extraterritorial provision | § 298-a allows claim for discrimination by out-of-state employer | NYSHRL does not allow private action against out-of-state company for out-of-state acts | NYSHRL § 298-a does not authorize King's claim |
| Title VII—Hostile Environment Timeliness | Hostile environment, including her termination, was a single ongoing pattern | Claim time-barred; all actionable events occurred outside the 300-day window | Continuing violation doctrine applies; claim is timely |
| Title VII—Discrimination/Retaliation | Termination and mistreatment were due to sex and in retaliation for complaints | King was fired for legitimate reimbursement violation, not sex or retaliation | Genuine disputes over pretext and comparators; summary judgment vacated and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (continuing violation doctrine and accrual rules for hostile work environment claims)
- Patterson v. County of Oneida, 375 F.3d 206 (2d Cir. 2004) (discrete acts and their relation to pattern/practice discrimination claims)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for employment discrimination)
- Back v. Hastings on Hudson Union Free Sch. Dist., 365 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2004) (gender-based comments can show discriminatory animus)
- Hoffman v. Parade Publications, 15 N.Y.3d 285 (2010) ("impact test" for NYSHRL extraterritorial application)