Magnusson v. County of Suffolk
690 F. App'x 716
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Arline Magnusson, a custodial worker for Suffolk County DPW, sued under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a hostile work environment based on sexual and sexual-orientation harassment.
- District Court granted summary judgment for the County, Kevin Spence, and Robert Beck; Magnusson appealed.
- The County had a formal, accessible sexual-harassment policy and Magnusson received reporting instructions from DPW and her union.
- Magnusson did not report the alleged incidents to appropriate County employees before filing an EEOC charge.
- Alleged actionable incidents occurred in 2003 and 2012; plaintiff abandoned retaliation and adverse-action claims on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether County liable under Title VII for hostile work environment | Magnusson argued she was sexually and sexually-orientation harassed, creating hostile environment | County argued it had an effective reporting policy and she unreasonably failed to use it | Court affirmed: County entitled to affirmative defense because Magnusson didn't report and offers of fear/futility were conclusory |
| Whether failure-to-report excuse applies (fear of retaliation/futility) | Magnusson claimed fear of retaliation and futility justified not reporting | County argued assertions were conclusory and not credible | Held: Assertions were legally insufficient; fear not "credible" so failure-to-report not excused |
| Whether § 1983 Equal Protection hostile-work-environment claim viable | Magnusson argued incidents constituted actionable § 1983 harassment | County argued incidents were isolated/insufficiently severe or pervasive to alter employment conditions | Held: § 1983 claim fails — incidents too isolated (2003, 2012) and not sufficiently severe/pervasive |
| Timeliness of claims | Magnusson contended claims timely | County argued some claims untimely | Held: Sexual-harassment claims timely under Title VII and § 1983; sexual-orientation claims timely under Title VII but untimely under § 1983; appeal addressed only timely claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Pa. State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129 (2004) (employer can avoid Title VII hostile-environment liability by showing an effective reporting system and employee's unreasonable failure to use it)
- Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861 (2014) (summary judgment review requires viewing evidence in the light most favorable to nonmovant)
- Zann Kwan v. Andalex Grp. LLC, 737 F.3d 834 (2d Cir. 2013) (definition of genuine dispute of material fact and inference-drawing in summary judgment context)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (hostile-work-environment analysis: conduct must unreasonably interfere with work)
- Wiercinski v. Mangia 57, Inc., 787 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2015) (severity/pervasiveness standard for hostile-work-environment claims)
- Leopold v. Baccarat, 239 F.3d 243 (2d Cir. 2001) (when fear of retaliation can excuse failure to report)
- Caridad v. Metro-North Commuter R.R., 191 F.3d 283 (2d Cir. 1999) (credibility requirement for fear-of-retaliation excuse)