Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—SEXUAL HARASSMENT—S.D.N.Y.: Fox News must face NYCHRL claims based on coworker’s alleged assault, (Sep 15, 2026)

By Tulay Turan, J.D.

A triable fact issue existed on whether the sexual assault occurred in a work environment.

A former Fox News Network employee can proceed to trial on his sexual harassment claims under the New York City Human Rights Law where a federal district court in New York found triable issues regarding whether FNN could be held liable for his coworker’s alleged assault. Denying FNN’s motion for summary judgment on the employee’s NYCHRL claims, the court ruled that a jury could conclude the coworker had managerial authority over the employee and could find the assault, which occurred at the coworker’s apartment, occurred in a work environment. The court, however, granted FNN’s motion for summary judgment on the employee’s New York State Human Rights Law claims because he did not show a basis for imputing the coworker’s conduct to FNN (Delancey v. Wells, No. 23 Civ. 10357 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2026)).

The employee worked for Fox News Network (FNN) from 2008 to 2010 after relocating to New York from a Florida television station affiliated with Fox. Before joining FNN, he connected through Facebook with a television producer who later joined FNN. After the employee was hired as a regional producer in FNN’s Fox News Edge division, the producer regularly communicated with him and frequently assigned him time-sensitive work requests. Although the producer was not his direct supervisor, he believed the producer held significant influence within the company and could affect his career prospects.

Invitation for drinks. About a month after the employee began working at FNN, the producer invited him to meet coworkers for drinks at a gay bar and suggested the outing could benefit his career. The employee alleged that before the gathering, the producer sexually assaulted him at the producer’s apartment and again attempted unwanted sexual contact in the building. The producer testified he did not remember the events. The employee stated he told a coworker about the incident the next day but did not report it to management or human resources because he feared being labeled a problem employee. This was in part because throughout his employment, his manager had frequently told him not to “go to” HR because it would be futile.

Opportunities diminished. The employee alleged that after the incident, his professional opportunities diminished and the producer’s demeanor toward him changed although he continued receiving assignments from the producer. The employee remained employed at FNN, receiving promotions and pay increases, but resigned in 2010, believing his career had stagnated and that the workplace was unsupportive.

Complaint filed. Thereafter, the employee filed this action against the producer, Fox Corporation, and FNN, asserting claims for assault and battery against the producer, and violations of the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) against Fox Corporation and FNN. The court previously denied FNN’s motion to dismiss, and FNN subsequently sought summary judgment along similar bases that the court considered in its motion-to-dismiss decision. FNN argued the sexual assault claim could not be imputed against FNN, the conduct that occurred outside the workplace did not impact the employee’s work environment, and there was no evidence supporting a claim for quid pro quo sexual harassment.

Abandoned claim. The court first found the employee had abandoned his NYSHRL claim because he did not respond to FNN’s argument that it could not be held liable for the producer’s actions under that state law unless the employee showed that FNN had actual notice of the misconduct and approved it. The employee suggested the NYSHRL imposed strict liability on employers in an identical manner to the NYCHRL, but he cited to no legal authority supporting this proposition. Thus, the court deemed this claim abandoned.

Managerial authority. Turning to whether FNN could be held liable for the producer’s conduct under the NYCHRL, the court found there was a triable issue of fact concerning whether he exercised managerial or supervisory conduct over the employee under N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(13)(b)(1). The court noted this prong functions like a strict liability provision, imposing liability on employers for the actions of their employees regardless of whether the employer knew or should have known of the assault.

The court also discussed which standard should apply to determine the managerial question, concluding the New York Supreme Court’s decision in Cajamarca v. Regal Entm’t Grp. was most appropriate. That standard focuses on whether an employee has the authority to direct another employee’s daily work activities.

Daily work activities. Applying this standard, the court found the employee had shown there was a triable issue of fact as to whether the producer had authority to direct his daily work activities. When he worked for Fox News Edge, he testified he had daily contact with individual producers on FNN shows who would directly request content from him. The defendant, as one of these producers, contacted him about two times a week with assignments for him to complete. Also, the employee stated these assignments were time sensitive and required immediate turnaround. The producer’s assignments took priority over other work. Thus, the court found a reasonable juror could conclude the producer had actual authority to direct the employee’s daily work activities. Accordingly, the court denied FNN’s motion for summary judgment on the employee’s claim under N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(13)(b)(1).

Unaware of harassment. However, FNN was entitled to summary judgment on the employee’s claim under N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(13)(b)(2) because there was no evidence FNN knew of the sexual harassment, acquiesced in such conduct, or failed to take immediate corrective action.

Should have known? Likewise, the court found no reasonable jury could conclude FNN should have known of the sexual harassment, which could impose liability on an employer under N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(13)(b)(3). At the time FNN hired the employee, there was no evidence it had knowledge of any sexual harassment complaints made against the producer, and there was no evidence of sexual harassment complaints prior to the employee’s assault.

The strongest evidence the employee cited was Facebook messages he received from a former FNN employee that stated the producer had called her an expletive name, her boss talked to the producer about it, and he apologized. These messages did not show that Fox should have known about the sexual assault, the court found. Nothing about the producer’s conduct toward her suggested sexual misconduct, and even the messages themselves did not suggest that she viewed or reported the issue as sexual harassment. The court agreed with FNN that the complaint “could hardly be found to put FNN on notice that [the producer] had a propensity to sexually assault a coworker.”

The court also rejected the employee’s remaining arguments that FNN should have known of his sexual assault. Whether the producer issued assignments to him did not bear on whether FNN should have known of the potential for a sexual assault. Also, the fact that the producer gave him monogrammed stationery was not a sign of the potential assault. In addition, regarding his supervisor’s comments that HR was not to be trusted, caselaw did not support his claims of vicarious liability. Although he claimed his manager discouraged him from going to HR in general, there was no evidence the manager instructed him not to report the specific assault at issue.

Work environment. The court next found the employee adduced sufficient evidence to create a triable issue as to whether the sexual assault occurred in a work environment. The court noted the employee’s supervisor, who is also gay, would frequently invite “the gay guys in the newsroom” to go to a bar to have drinks and work-related conversations after work. It would be reasonable, the court said, for the employee to assume that FNN had a “culture” of social drinking events among employees.

In addition, when the producer invited the employee to go to the gay bar, he had already, in discussions with the employee, repeatedly held himself out as someone with power at FNN. The producer told the employee it would be a good thing for him to get to know other FNN employees who would be at the bar and that attending could “benefit” the employee. Thus, the court found a jury could reasonably infer that FNN had a culture that encouraged, especially gay employees, to network at bars, and given this culture and their relationship, the alleged assault occurred in a work environment.

The court noted that in similar cases, courts have held that conduct occurring outside the physical workplace and outside of normal working hours was sufficiently connected to the workplace to support a sexual harassment claim. These cases involved a flight attendant who was drugged and raped by a coworker while staying at a hotel, and a case where a sexual assault occurred at a funeral reception for the employer’s father. In the latter case, the court noted employees often “interact outside the office at business-related meals and social events” and that “the employment relationship may necessarily carry over by reason of circumstances that may have their origins in the workplace itself.”

Here, the court concluded a jury could reasonably infer that the producer’s invitation for drinks at the bar “constituted an invitation to a business-related social event, necessarily related to [the producer’s] and [the employee’s] employment relationship.”

Quid pro quo. Finally, the court found the employee’s state law claims based on a quid pro quo theory of sexual harassment failed because it already had concluded that his causes of action under the NYSHRL failed because he did not show a basis for imputing the employee’s conduct to FNN. As to his NYCHRL claim, the issue was irrelevant, the court said, because that law does not distinguish quid pro quo claims from hostile work environment claims, focusing instead on unequal treatment based on gender. As the court previously ruled, there were triable fact issues on the question of unequal treatment. Thus, the court granted summary judgment to FNN on the quid-pro-quo claims.

The case is No. 23 Civ. 10357.

Judge: Torres, A.

Attorneys: Kimberly A. Catala (Filippatos) for Andrew Delancey. Krissy A. Katzenstein (Paul Hastings) for Fox Corp. and Fox News Network LLC. Bryan J. Freedman (Freedman, Taitelman & Cooley) for Justin Wells.

Companies: Fox Corporation; Fox News Network LLC

MainStory: TopStory SexualHarassment Discrimination CoverageLiability StateLawClaims NewYorkNews GCNNews