95 A.D.3d 671
N.Y. App. Div.2012Background
- McRedmond alleged over two years Hanafy subjected her to vulgar sexual comments, body-weight taunts, and touching of buttocks and breasts; conduct targeted at female employees; she complained to Hanafy and supervisor Steddinger with coworker corroboration.
- Hanafy denied the alleged conduct and other defendants denied knowledge of it, creating credibility issues that bench could not resolve on summary judgment.
- Court noted City HRL provides broader protection than State HRL and McRedmond raised factual issues under State HRL, thus a fortiori issues under City HRL exist.
- Court held defendants can be liable for Hanafy’s conduct by the other individual defendants (owner Kassis, manager Bradbury) if they condoned, aided, or participated; supervisor Steddinger’s knowledge can be imputed to Sutton Place.
- Plaintiffs presented prima facie retaliation cases; defendants offered nondiscriminatory reasons with questionable authenticity of disciplinary forms, creating issues of fact for pretext under both State and City HRLs.
- Issues also exist as to false imprisonment and battery—fact questions whether Hanafy confined McRedmond and whether contact was offensive or without consent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hostile environment under HRLs | McRedmond; Hanafy’s conduct created hostile environment | No actionable hostility or unfitness established | Issues of fact exist; hostile environment shown under State and City HRLs |
| Employer/manager liability for Hanafy’s conduct | Owner, general manager liable for condoning or aiding | Limited managerial liability; lack of knowledge shown | Individual defendants may be liable under both HRLs |
| Retaliation and pretext | Terminations after complaints show retaliation; forms falsified | NDAs policies cited; legitimate reasons shown | Issues of fact on pretext; retaliation survives for State and City HRLs |
| False imprisonment | Hanafy confined McRedmond in office | No confinement; free to leave | Material issues of fact on confinement exist |
| Battery claims | Offensive touching occurred without consent | Intent to harm not required for battery | Issues of fact as to whether touching was offensive and non-consensual |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (U.S. 1993) (hostile environment standard; totality of circumstances; no psychological injury needed)
- Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 N.Y.3d 295 (N.Y. 2004) (state HRL standard; employee testimony supports hostile environment claim)
- Feingold v. New York, 366 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2004) (individual liability; supervisor knowledge implied)
- Gorzynski v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 596 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010) (imputing supervisor knowledge to employer; knowledge sufficient for liability)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for retaliation; pretext analysis)
- Patrowich v. Chemical Bank, 63 N.Y.2d 541 (N.Y. 1984) (employer liability for supervisory conduct; agency principles)
- Arrington v. Liz Claiborne, Inc., 260 A.D.2d 267 (1st Dep't 1999) (false imprisonment/employee confinement; jury questions)
- Sola v. Swan, 18 A.D.3d 363 (2d Dep't 2005) (battery elements; intent not required for harmful contact)
- Lewis v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 77 F. Supp. 2d 376 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (supervisor knowledge and duties; HRL implications)