Hostile Work Environment Due to Sexual Harassment as a Cause of Action in New York

A hostile work environment claim based on sexual harassment is a serious cause of action in New York employment law. To successfully bring such a claim, a plaintiff must allege and prove several key elements. Each of these elements plays a crucial role in determining whether the behavior constitutes actionable workplace harassment.

1. Membership in a Protected Class

The first requirement is that the plaintiff must be a member of a protected class. In the context of sexual harassment, this generally refers to gender, but other classes protected by law, such as race, religion, or national origin, may also be relevant depending on the facts of the case. The plaintiff must show that the harassment occurred because of their membership in this class.

2. Unwelcome Conduct or Words

The plaintiff must allege that the conduct or words on which the sexual harassment claim is based were unwelcome. Unwelcome conduct is behavior that the plaintiff did not invite or consent to and found offensive. This can include unwanted sexual advances, inappropriate comments, physical contact, or any other conduct that the plaintiff found objectionable.

3. Conduct or Words Based on Gender

The conduct must be prompted by the plaintiff’s gender. This means the harassment was motivated by the plaintiff’s sex and not by other unrelated personal conflicts or issues. The plaintiff must show that the harassment would not have occurred but for their gender.

4. Creation of a Hostile Work Environment

To state a valid claim, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the conduct was so severe or pervasive that it created a hostile work environment, affecting a term, condition, or privilege of employment. A hostile work environment is one that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive. It must also be shown that the plaintiff subjectively perceived the environment as hostile. A single, extraordinarily severe incident or a pattern of continuous and concerted behavior may be sufficient to meet this standard.

5. Employer Liability

Finally, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant, typically the employer, is liable for the conduct. Employers can be held liable if they knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to take appropriate corrective action. In Samide v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, the plaintiff alleged that she made numerous complaints about the harassing conduct, but the Diocese failed to discipline the harasser for an extended period. This lack of action contributed to the hostile work environment and worsened the plaintiff’s anxiety, depression, and emotional distress.

Severe or Pervasive Standard

The plaintiff must show that the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment. This can be established by demonstrating either a single severe incident or multiple incidents that were continuous and concerted. The workplace must be “permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult” to rise to the level of a hostile work environment.

Successfully proving a hostile work environment claim requires a thorough understanding of these elements and a well-documented record of the alleged harassment and its impact on the plaintiff’s well-being and employment conditions.

Find the Law

“In order to state a claim for hostile work environment sexual harassment, the complaint must assert ‘1) that [the plaintiff] is a member of a protected class; (2) that the conduct or words upon which her claim of sexual harassment is predicated were unwelcome; (3) that the conduct or words were prompted simply because of her gender; (4) that the conduct or words created a hostile work environment which affected a term, condition or privilege of her employment; (5) and that the defendant is liable for such conduct’ (see, Griffin v Mercer, Inc., 1998 WL 1050968; see also, Tomka v Mobil Oil Corporation, 788 F. Supp. 1336 [SDNY 1992]). The complaint must allege conduct severe or pervasive enough to create a work environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive, and it must allege that the victim subjectively perceived the environment to be hostile (see, Harris v Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21-22; Trotta v Mobil Oil Corporation, 788 F. Supp. 1336 [SDNY 1992]). It must either indicate that a “single incident was extraordinarily severe,” or that a series of incidents were “sufficiently continuous and concerted” to have altered the conditions of her working environment. Generally, the harassing conduct must be sufficiently “severe” or “pervasive” that it changes the condition of the victim’s employment (Soci v China Grill, 2001 WL 1682876). A hostile work environment sexual harassment claim can be established where, as here, there is a showing of a workplace “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” (Soci v China Grill, 2001 WL 1682876,supra, quoting Harris v Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21; see,Nacinovich v Tullett Tokoyo Forex, Inc., 1998 WL 1050971, supra;Father Belle Community Center v State Division of Human Rights, 221 A.D.2d 44). In this case, the plaintiff sufficiently alleged that the conduct alleged was unwelcome and that she made numerous complaints to the Diocese regarding Father Thompson’s conduct, but was essentially told that they are aware of what is happening and to accept it. She became anxious, despondent and depressed, notwithstanding what allegedly transpired. The Diocese did nothing to discipline Father Thompson for an extended period of time.” Samide, v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, 194 Misc. 2d 561, 571-72 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2003).