Reid v. Ingerman Smith LLP
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93974
E.D.N.Y2012Background
- Reid, a South Carolina resident, worked as a legal secretary for Ingerman, a New York LLP, starting February 2008; Sadowski, her supervisor, allegedly discriminated based on sex and harassed her starting summer 2008; the March 2009 incident involved Sadowski grabbing Reid’s breast after looking at her and declaring them “huge,” which Reid characterized as a sexual advance; Reid alleges retaliation including altered duties, withholding work, and termination following the incident; Reid relocated to South Carolina and filed suit January 18, 2012; defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and Reid amended the complaint after initial dismissal motions; the court grants some claims and denies others, ultimately dismissing retaliation and aiding-and-abetting claims with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Reid states a valid NYSHRL sex-discrimination claim | Reid’s claim arises from sex-based conduct by Sadowski | Defendants argue lack of sex-masparity or discriminatory motive | Discrimination claim plausibly states sex-based discrimination under NYSHRL |
| Whether the conduct was caused by Reid’s sex | Allegations imply gender-based animus, suggests homosexual context | No explicit gender-based motive stated | Allegations show conduct was because of Reid’s sex; plausible inference of sex-based harassment |
| Whether the conduct was objectively hostile environment | Single, severe act can suffice if profoundly altering workplace | Green Tree-type single incident insufficient | Single, highly intrusive conduct suffices; adequate to plead hostile environment |
| Whether the NYSHRL aiding-and-abetting claim survives | Co-defendant participation in discrimination supports §296.6 | Individual can’t aid and abet own conduct; Ingerman and Sadowski not properly alleged | Aiding-and-abetting claims dismissed as to both Ingerman and Sadowski |
Key Cases Cited
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1998) (same-sex harassment actionable; three ways to show sex-based harassment)
- Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (U.S. 1998) (limits of harassment employer liability; quid pro quo/hostile environment framework)
- Gregory v. Daly, 243 F.3d 687 (2d Cir.2001) (retaliation standard and deference to Title VII principles)
- Hicks v. Baines, 593 F.3d 159 (2d Cir.2010) (NYSHRL claims analyzed under Title VII principles)
- Redd v. N.Y. State Div. of Parole, 678 F.3d 166 (2d Cir.2012) (same-sex harassment; evidence of sex-based discrimination)
- Alfano v. Costello, 294 F.3d 365 (2d Cir.2002) (hostile environment standard; objective/subjective elements)
- Carrero v. N.Y. City Housing Auth., 890 F.2d 569 (2d Cir.1989) (pervasive conduct standard factors)
- Howley v. Town of Stratford, 217 F.3d 141 (2d Cir.2000) (single incident can be severe enough to be pervasive)