Ruiz v. Bayshore - Brightwaters Rescue Ambulance, Inc.
1:18-cv-00280
| E.D.N.Y | Mar 31, 2021Background
- Plaintiffs Raymis K. Ruiz and John Messing Jr. were volunteers at Bay Shore–Brightwaters Rescue Ambulance, a private non‑profit; Ruiz was a crew chief. Ruiz complained that fellow volunteer Alex Mullin made unwelcome sexual advances (the “flagpole” incident) and that Mullin spread damaging sex‑related rumors about her during a contested officer election.
- Ruiz reported the conduct to BSBRA leadership (the Chiefs and board members). BSBRA drafted a no‑contact/scheduling agreement between Ruiz and Mullin but the Chiefs allegedly allowed Mullin to flout it while enforcing its burdensome effects on Ruiz.
- After Ruiz’s complaint, she and several supporters experienced ostracism, name‑calling, and discipline of associates; Ruiz stopped volunteering and was later notified of an expulsion hearing she did not attend.
- Messing publicly complained at an installation dinner that leadership failed to address Ruiz’s harassment; he was suspended at the event and later expelled. Messing claims retaliation for his complaint.
- Procedural posture: plaintiffs sued under Title VII and the NYSHRL for hostile work environment and retaliation; defendants moved for summary judgment. The court denied summary judgment on Ruiz’s hostile‑work‑environment and retaliation claims (NYSHRL and Title VII where applicable), granted summary judgment dismissing Messing’s retaliation claim, granted Title VII dismissal of individual liability, but allowed NYSHRL aiding/abetting claims against individual defendants and denied summary judgment as to punitive damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the workplace was a hostile environment (Title VII/NYSHRL) | Ruiz: aggregate of incidents (party assaults by Mullin, lewd gingerbread display, damaging rumors, flagpole advance, Chiefs' permissiveness) was severe/pervasive | Defs: incidents were isolated/minor; flagpole was merely an expression of interest; some conduct was welcomed; rumors tied to election not sex | Denied summary judgment for Ruiz — jury could find harassment severe/pervasive under totality of circumstances |
| Whether BSBRA retaliated against Ruiz for complaining | Ruiz: schedule restrictions, permitting Mullin to violate agreement, isolation and discipline of her supporters were materially adverse and causally connected | Defs: measures remedied situation and stemmed from election or operational needs; not materially adverse or not causally connected | Denied summary judgment as to Ruiz — sufficient evidence of adverse action and causation for jury |
| Whether Messing engaged in protected activity and was retaliated against | Messing: he complained in good faith at the dinner about Ruiz’s harassment; termination was pretextual retaliation | Defs: Messing was not objectively reasonable in believing a Title VII violation existed; he was intoxicated and expelled for misconduct at the dinner | Granted for defendants as to Messing — no reasonable, good‑faith belief that Title VII violation occurred, so no protected activity |
| Individual liability and punitive damages | Plaintiffs: Chiefs and Mullin aided/abetted harassment and retaliation; punitive damages appropriate for reckless/conscious indifference | Defs: individuals not liable under Title VII; punitive damages improper; BSBRA immune | Court: individuals not liable under Title VII (granted); aiding/abetting under NYSHRL survives re: Chiefs and Mullin (denied); punitive damages not resolved for jury (denied summary judgment on punitive damages) |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (articulates "severe or pervasive" hostile work environment standard)
- Meritor Sav. Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986) (unwelcome sexual advances are key to harassment claim)
- Alfano v. Costello, 294 F.3d 365 (2d Cir. 2002) (single‑incident vs. series‑of‑incidents analysis for pervasiveness)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (retaliation: materially adverse test measured by whether actions would dissuade a reasonable worker)
- Hayut v. State Univ. of N.Y., 352 F.3d 733 (2d Cir. 2003) (objective hostility standard for harassment claims)
- Kelly v. Howard I. Shapiro & Assocs., 716 F.3d 10 (2d Cir. 2013) (retaliation: protected activity requires good‑faith reasonable belief in violation)
- Patterson v. County of Oneida, 375 F.3d 206 (2d Cir. 2004) (individuals not liable under Title VII)
- Grogan v. Blooming Grove Volunteer Ambulance Corps, 768 F.3d 259 (2d Cir. 2014) (volunteer non‑profit ambulance corp not a state actor; relevant to sovereign‑immunity/punitive damages analysis)