Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WORTH NOTING—Cases of note dealing with sexual harassment, (Apr 4, 2025)

By WK Editorial Staff

A roundup of recent sexual harassment decisions of interest to the labor and employment law community.

D. Ariz.: If this not enough, no claim would ever survive. In a case involving allegations of a hostile work environment, the former employee contended that her employer, a healthcare staffing company, and a company executive engaged in discriminatory practices and harassment during her tenure from 2016 to 2021, culminating in her termination. The former employee cited incidents including sexual assault by one of the company's owners, exclusion from company activities, and derogatory comments by colleagues, which she claimed contributed to a toxic workplace. She also reported alleged violations of company policy and retaliatory actions following her FMLA leave. The former employee sued the company, alleging sex-based discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliation, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and retaliation. The employer and the executive moved for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment on the negligent infliction of emotional distress, FMLA retaliation, and whistleblower termination claims. However, the court found sufficient evidence to allow the claims of sex-based discrimination, sexual harassment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress to proceed, noting the severity of the alleged conduct. The court stated: “Simply put: if this evidence is not enough to demonstrate a hostile work environment claim, no such claim would ever survive summary judgment” (Dubey v. Concentric Healthcare Solutions, LLC , No. 2:22-cv-02044-DJH (D. Ariz. Mar. 24, 2025)).

N.D. Ill.: Alleged harassment against employee was not ‘sufficiently severe or pervasive.’ An animal control officer working for Chicago Animal Care and Control (CACC) claimed she was subjected to a hostile work environment and harassment by coworkers following a sexual assault by a coworker. She reported the incident to the city's EEO Division and the police, leading to an investigation by the Office of Inspector General (OIG). Over the next two years, she alleged harassment by coworkers, including derogatory comments, memes targeting her as a “snitch,” and unfavorable work assignments. In June 2020, the OIG completed its investigation, which resulted in the firing of the coworker who assaulted the employee, and the suspension of her supervisor. After receiving a right to sue letter, the employee sued the city and her supervisor, alleging sexual harassment leading to a hostile work environment and retaliation under Title VII, among other things. The city and her supervisor moved for summary judgment, arguing the alleged conduct was not based on the employee’s sex and was neither severe nor pervasive enough to constitute a hostile work environment. The court agreed, finding that a reasonable jury “could not find that the [employee’s] work environment was sufficiently severe or pervasive as a result of sexual harassment….” The court also found no evidence of materially adverse employment actions or a causal link between her protected activity and alleged retaliation. The employee’s other claims also failed, and the motion was granted (Corona v. City of Chicago, No. 1:21-cv-06777 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 24, 2025)).

E.D. Va.: Female executive alleged harassment, ‘good ol’ boys’ atmosphere at software company. A senior director at a software company alleged experiencing a hostile work environment characterized by sex-based discrimination and harassment. She reported that the company fostered a “good ol' boys” club atmosphere, where her credentials were questioned, she was subjected to derogatory remarks by an account executive—she was called, among other things, a “slut” and a “whore” who had “slept her way to the top”—and faced retaliation after reporting unethical practices and a potential kickback scheme involving a colleague. The employee sued the company and executive, alleging defamation against the executive; intentional infliction of emotional distress against the executive and company; and discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation against the company under Title VII and the Virginia Human Rights Act (VHRA). The company and executive moved to dismiss. The court found that the employee plausibly alleged defamation against the executive, and that a senior director in the company may have ratified the executive’s statements, thereby making them actionable. The court also upheld the hostile work environment claim, acknowledging the severe and pervasive nature of the alleged harassment. However, the court dismissed the claims of discriminatory discharge and retaliation, and found the intentional infliction of emotional distress claims unsubstantiated under Virginia law (Cox v. Red Hat, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00766-RDA-WEF (E.D. Va. Mar. 21, 2025)).

E.D.N.Y.: Unwanted touching, coupled with inquiries and late-night texts, could constitute harassment. A brand steward for a whiskey company sued the company and its CEO, alleging sex discrimination and retaliation under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), as well as unpaid commissions and bonuses under New York Labor Law. She alleged that her supervisor engaged in unwanted touching and made inappropriate inquiries into her personal life, creating a hostile work environment. After lodging a formal complaint, she claimed her employer retaliated by isolating her from colleagues and company communications. The employer moved for summary judgment, arguing that the allegations did not constitute harassment or retaliation as a matter of law. The court found that the allegations of unwanted touching, coupled with inquiries and late-night texts, could constitute harassment under the NYCHRL and NYSHRL, as they were more than “petty slights or inconveniences.” The court also determined that the employer’s actions post-complaint, including the isolation and communication changes, was “sufficient evidence from which a jury could infer retaliatory intent,” and that the evidence showed that the CEO “was responsible for and directed all of the alleged retaliatory action against [the employee].” However, the court granted summary judgment on the claim for unpaid bonuses (Menos v. Uncle Nearest, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-01449-PKC-PK (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2025)).

S.D.N.Y.: Female police officer alleged retaliation after reporting sexual assault by colleague. A female police officer sued a municipality and several police officers alleging discrimination, sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII, Section 1983, and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). The officer alleged that she was subjected to a “severe and pervasive sexually hostile environment,” retaliatory conduct, and unfair discipline after reporting being sexually assaulted by a fellow officer. The municipal entity and officers moved for summary judgment. The court found that the officer failed to establish a hostile work environment under Title VII and Section 1983, as the alleged incidents were either time-barred or did not meet the legal threshold for severity and pervasiveness. However, the court allowed the retaliation claims to proceed, finding triable issues regarding the officer’s treatment on the midnight shift, investigations into a motor vehicle accident she was involved in, and issuance of disciplinary notices. The court also dismissed claims against certain officers due to lack of personal involvement. The remaining retaliation claims against the municipality and specific officers advanced to trial (Stein v. Town of Greenburgh, No. 21-CV-05673 (PMH) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2025)).

Cases: SexualHarassment SexDiscrimination TortClaims Whistleblowers Discrimination Retaliation EmployeeLeave Discharge StateLawClaims Procedure