562 F. App'x 25
2d Cir.2014Background
- Lewis, hired Sept. 2006 as City Director of Management and Budgets reporting to Hamilton, City Director of Finance.
- Hamilton, openly gay, allegedly made sexual advances toward Lewis, including leering and lip-licking gestures, recurring a few times weekly early on and sporadic later.
- Other conduct alleged: invitations to gym and drinks, discussions about Hamilton’s loneliness, and an in-office incident where Hamilton entered while Lewis was changing.
- May 6, 2010 meeting offered Lewis resignation with a signed release or formal removal with a due process hearing; Lewis given three days to decide and placed on administrative leave.
- May 18, 2010 Lewis, via attorney, reported harassment under the city policy; Dixon conducted an external investigation finding the allegations uncorroborated; July 15, 2010 Lewis terminated for “substandard work performance”; EEOC charge followed and brought suit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the conduct constitutes a hostile work environment. | Lewis argues harassment was severe and pervasive. | City contends conduct was sporadic and not severe or pervasive. | No; not severe or pervasive enough to alter conditions. |
| Whether Lewis’s termination was retaliation for filing harassment claims. | Lewis asserts termination was causally linked to his harassment complaint. | Termination based on documented poor performance, predating the complaint. | No; termination based on preexisting performance issues, insufficient causal link. |
Key Cases Cited
- Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (U.S. 2001) (establishes objective and subjective standard for hostile environment and causality in retaliation)
- Kaytor v. Elec. Boat Corp., 609 F.3d 537 (2d Cir. 2010) (requires both objective and subjective evaluation of hostile environment)
- Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2002) (discusses totality of circumstances for hostile environment, timing, frequency, severity)
- Patterson v. Cnty. of Oneida, N.Y., 375 F.3d 206 (2d Cir. 2004) (claims under Title VII and §1983 require severe or pervasive discriminatory conduct)
- Hicks v. Baines, 593 F.3d 159 (2d Cir. 2010) (framework for retaliation prima facie case and causation analysis)