The Court of Appeals has reinstated a discrimination claim against the New York City Housing Authority, holding that management's unsuccessful efforts to replace plaintiff with a Spanish-speaking administrator created a hostile work environment. This is the rare hostile environment case that does not involve explicitly-racial comments directed toward the plaintiff; rather it involves personnel actions and statements made at Housing Authority meetings.
The case is Williams v. New York City Housing Auth., issued on February 23. It all started when the Speaker of the New York City Council, Mark-Viverito, who wielded substantial control over the Housing Authority, screamed and pounded the table at a Housing Authority meeting on July 30, 2015 in which plaintiff, a housing manager at Mill Brook Houses who did not speak Spanish, said she used agency translators to communicate with Spanish-speaking residents. NYCHA's general manager, Clarke, next arranged to transfer plaintiff, telling another agency official to emphasize that plaintiff's transfer was necessary because of "cultural sensitivity needs" at Mill Brook Houses. It was proposed that a Hispanic manager would replace plaintiff, though others in the agency said this option was discriminatory and thus illegal. During a follow-up meeting on August 28, with plaintiff still at the helm, another agency honcho inquired "about the Spanish speaking thing" in a "nasty" manner. While plaintiff was never transferred (on the advice of the Law Department, which probably wanted to avoid a discrimination lawsuit), she claims her superiors tried to sabotage her work by: not replacing essential personnel at Mill Brook Houses and transferring her Spanish-speaking assistant and replacing her with someone named Limo who exhibited deficient job performance. In the end, plaintiff quit her job two years later, stressed-out and suspicious that the agency was setting her up to fail to ensure her departure from the job.
Plaintiff's hostile work environment claim draws from five separate incidents: (1) the July 30, 2015 meeting at Mark-Viverito’s office; (2) Clarke’s directions to transfer Williams from Mill Brook Houses; (3) the August 28, 2015 meeting regarding Williams’s exchanges with Spanish-speaking residents; (4) NYCHA’s failure to timely fill the vacancies; and (5) the transfer and replacement of Mill Brook’s Spanish-speaking superintendent with Limo. The district court said there is no hostile work environment case, dismissing the complaint.
The Court of Appeals (Pooler, Lohier and Lynch) reverses, issuing a far-reaching decision. On the federal and state law harassment claims, which require the plaintiff to show "severe or pervasive" harassment, the Circuit finds the district court did not view all these incidents in their totality, as is required under Second Circuit and Supreme Court authority.
A jury might regard the "Spanish manager" demand at the July 30, 2015 meeting a racist comment, and Mark-Viverito's authority over the agency is relevant to this analysis, as is Clarke's silence during the meeting when these comments were made. As for the transfer demand, while plaintiff was not in fact transferred, the jury could find this "cultural sensitivity" demand was motivated by racial discrimination, as cases hold that personnel actions motivated by a plaintiff's "fit" within the workplace may have racial implications, and the transfer was halted because the Law Department said it might be discriminatory; had plaintiff's transfer been proposed for legitimate performance reasons, then the transfer would have been effectuated. While plaintiff was not aware of the ongoing efforts to replace her, that is not dispositive under Second Circuit precedent. The August 28, 2015 meeting also supports the hostile work environment case, as plaintiff says Clarke made aggressive statements about plaintiff's communications with Spanish-speaking residents.
A noteworthy holding in this case addresses plaintiff's argument that her resignation was precipitated by the August 28, 2015 meeting that took place two years earlier. The Court finds:
Had the court drawn all inferences in Williams’s favor, it would not have dismissed this potential link so readily. For example, though a jury might factor the nearly two-year gap against Williams, the jury could alternatively consider that the staffing shortages, which precipitated Williams’s retirement, began in October 2015, roughly two months after the initial meeting with Mark-Viverito and about one month after the later meeting with Clarke. The court thus overlooked disputed material facts, supplanting the function of a jury.
That two-year gap is the longest I've seen in any discrimination case.
Overall, the Court finds, the district court misapplied the legal standard in not viewing all these incidents in their totality. The trial court explicitly declined to examine two of the five incidents under the totality test. But that approach prevents the court from realistically viewing the work environment. These events "are a substantial part of [plaintiff's] story" because they relate to the agency's orchestrated effort to remove her from her position. And while the trial court said the evidence does not show that her treatment at the agency tangibly impacted plaintiff's work environment, "a jury could find that the delay in filling the HA vacancies and the transfer of Mill Brook Houses’ Spanish-speaking superintendent, along with the behind-the-scenes effort to transfer Williams, made it more challenging for Williams to carry out her job."
Finally, since plaintiff makes out a hostile work environment claim under federal and state law, her city law claims (which carry a more plaintiff-friendly test) are also reinstated for trial.
No comments:
Post a Comment