You are here: / / “Hostile Work Environment” (Allegedly Offensive Sex-Related...
,

“Hostile Work Environment” (Allegedly Offensive Sex-Related Remarks) and “Retaliation for Opposition to Discriminatory Practices” Causes of Action Explained

The Second Department determined defendant-employer was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff-employee’s “hostile work environment” cause of action (allegedly offensive sex-related remarks) but was not entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff-employee’s “retaliation for opposing discriminatory conduct” cause of action. Defendant was able to demonstrate the allegedly offensive remarks were isolated incidents which did not permeate the work environment.  But a question of fact was raised about the “retaliation” cause of action. Plaintiff was terminated one day after the employer received a letter about the alleged discrimination from plaintiff’s attorney.  The Second Department explained the elements of “hostile work environment” and “retaliation for opposing discriminatory conduct” causes of action:

A hostile work environment exists where the workplace is “permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment” … . Various factors, such as frequency and severity of the discrimination, whether the allegedly discriminatory actions were threatening or humiliating or a “mere offensive utterance,” and whether the alleged actions “unreasonably interfere[ ] with an employee’s work” are to be considered in determining whether a hostile work environment exists … . The allegedly abusive conduct must not only have altered the conditions of employment of the employee, who subjectively viewed the actions as abusive, but the actions must have created an “objectively hostile or abusive environment—one that a reasonable person would find to be so” … . * * *

Under the New York State Human Rights Law, it is unlawful to retaliate against an employee for opposing discriminatory practices (see Executive Law § 296[7]…). In order to make out a cause of action for retaliation, “[a] plaintiff must show that (1) she has engaged in protected activity, (2) her employer was aware that she participated in such activity, (3) she suffered an adverse employment action based upon her activity, and (4) there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action” … . “To establish its entitlement to summary judgment in a retaliation case, a defendant must demonstrate that the plaintiff cannot make out a prima facie claim of retaliation or, having offered legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons for the challenged actions, that there exists no triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant’s explanations were pretextual” … . La Marca-Pagano v Dr. Steven Phillips, P.C., 2015 NY Slip Op 05162, 2nd Dept 6-17-15

 

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER AN EMPTY MILK CRATE ON A CARPETED FLOOR; THE CONDITION WAS DEEMED “OPEN AND OBVIOUS” AS A MATTER OF LAW ENTITLING DEFENDANTS TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
Application to File Late Notice of Claim Against School District Properly Granted in Absence of Reasonable Excuse—School District Had Timely Actual Notice and Could Not Demonstrate Prejudice
MORTGAGE WAS AMBIGUOUS BECAUSE IT DESCRIBED THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BY A SINGLE LOT NUMBER AND BY METES AND BOUNDS WHICH ENCOMPASSED TWO LOTS, QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE INTENT OF THE PARTIES PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
SANCTIONS PROPERLY IMPOSED FOR BRINGING A FRIVOLOUS LAWSUIT (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY’S ILLNESS WAS A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT ORAL ARGUMENT, MERITORIOUS ACTION DEMONSTRATED, FIRST MOTION DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, SECOND MOTION ON THE SAME GROUNDS WAS NOT, THEREFORE, PRECLUDED (SECOND DEPT).
Failure to Prove Shared Intent (Accessorial Liability) Required Dismissal of Robbery Counts Under a Weight of the Evidence Analysis
Remainderman Was Entitled to the Tax and Insurance Payments Made on Behalf of the Holder of the Life Estate/Life Estate Should Have Been Extinguished as a Matter of Equity
CITY WAS NOT ESTOPPED FROM ASSERTING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE TO A CHALLENGE TO CITY WATER BILLS, ALTHOUGH AN INACCURATE BILL HAD BEEN ISSUED, THE ERROR WAS CORRECTED AND THE CITY DID NOT ACT IMPROPERLY (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Question of Fact Whether Failure to Provide Personal Ropes to Firefighters Gave... Unambiguous Language In a Rider and an Exclusion In a Financial Institution...