Notaro v. Fossil Industries, Inc., 820 F. Supp. 2d 452

Plaintiffs No-taro and Lem allege Fossil Industries, Inc. and Bianco created a hostile work environment that led to constructive discharge and retaliation after they complained.
Bianco, a Print Manager, allegedly engaged in sexually charged profanity and abusive outbursts; plaintiffs contend he was not under supervisor control, while Fossil cites a different supervisor structure.
Notaro and Lem claim multiple incidents from 2005–2006, including obscene remarks, threats, and objects thrown, some not directly directed at them but deemed sexually charged.
Notaro and Lem filed EEOC complaints in June 2006; Fossil allegedly lacked timely corrective action beyond an April 26, 2006 incident.
Plaintiffs later filed suit (May 2009) alleging Title VII and NYSHRL violations; Bianco had not appeared at the time of summary judgment briefing.
District court denied summary judgment on hostile environment and constructive discharge claims but granted it on retaliation claims, concluding issues of material fact remained.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bianco's conduct created a hostile environment	Notaro and Lem claim persistent sexually charged harassment.	Conduct was not severe or pervasive; isolated or non-directed outbursts.	Issue material fact; summary judgment denied for hostile environment.
Whether Fossil can be liable for a coworker harassment	Knowledge and failure to act by management imputes liability.	Co-worker harassment; possible liability only for negligence if knowledge and inaction exist.	Genuine issue of material fact on knowledge/response; vicarious liability denial denied.
Whether plaintiffs were constructively discharged	Harassment rendered employment intolerable; quitting implied.	No objective proof of intolerable conditions or causal link to employer action.	Issue for trial; constructive discharge claims survive summary judgment.
Whether there was a Title VII retaliation claim	Continued harassment after complaints constitutes retaliation.	No adverse action linked to protected activity; failure to investigate is not retaliation.	Granted summary judgment for defendant on retaliation claim.

Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (U.S. 1993) (harassment must be severe or pervasive to alter employment conditions)
Cruz v. Coach Stores, Inc., 202 F.3d 560 (2d Cir. 2000) (totality of circumstances governs severity/pervasiveness)
Ackerman v. Nat'l Fin. Sys., Inc., 81 F.Supp.2d 434 (E.D.N.Y. 2000) (summary judgment unresolved where conduct boorish, not automatically harassing)
Distasio v. Perkin Elmer Corp., 157 F.3d 55 (2d Cir. 1998) (employer liability for coworker harassment depends on failure to prevent/act)
Howley v. Town of Stratford, 217 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 2000) (knowledge/response standard for hostile environment liability)
Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128 (2d Cir. 2003) (retaliation requires protected activity and causal link)
Petrosino v. Bell Atl., 385 F.3d 210 (2d Cir. 2004) (objective standard for constructive discharge assessments)
Mandel v. Champion Intl. Corp., 361 F.Supp.2d 320 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (constructive discharge standard higher than hostile environment)
Schiano v. Quality Payroll Sys., Inc., 445 F.3d 597 (2d Cir. 2006) (boorish vs. actionable harassment; credibility questions for jury)