Court of Appeals finds plaintiff can win hostile work environment case

This hostile work environment case was dismissed on the employer's motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeals says the plaintiff was subjected to enough obnoxious, sexist, and racist comments that she can prevail at trial.

The case is Zeng v. New York City Housing Authority, a summary order issued on July 17. Oral argument took place in January 2023, so this lengthy (16 pages) summary order took some time for the Court of Appeals to issue its ruling. In addition, to finding that plaintiff has a hostile work environment claim, it finds she can win her retaliation claim. This blog post will focus on the racial/sexual harassment component.

Plaintiff's claims stem from harassment at three different locations. At the LaGuardia Houses, she was the only Asian employee. Her supervisor sent her to work in a particularly dangerous building without any safety backup. A building resident cornered and sexually assaulted plaintiff, and the NYCHA did not investigate that incident or transfer plaintiff to another location. Instead, she still had to work alone at this location, unlike male and non-Asian coworkers. She had to work without a coat for long hours during a cold November and was denied time off to attend court appearances to renew an order of protection against her abusive ex-boyfriend, and she was threatened with termination if she attended the hearing. 

After plaintiff was ultimately transferred to Issac Houses, on multiple occasions, her new male supervisor, Elliot Ramos, “kicked the unlockable women’s bathroom door open and walked in while [she] was using the bathroom,” asking whether she was sleeping or taking a break. In addition, for the majority of her placement at Isaacs Houses, plaintiff did not receive a physical schedule setting forth her responsibilities on a weekly basis, even though her non-Asian co-workers received such a schedule, and in December 2016, while sitting with her co-workers and her supervisor, Ramos, she told them that she would not work on Christmas Day because she had to facilitate a visitation with her son’s father. Everyone responded by laughing and shouting racist and sexist comments, such as “f**king Asian,” “f**king yellow Asian,” “f**king stupid b***h,” and “f**k her son.”

After complaining about her mistreatment at Issac Houses, plaintiff was transferred to Smith Houses, where she overheard her prior supervisor, in speaking with her new supervisor, say, “F**k the B***h! Do not transfer her! I’m her boss. She must be [at Isaacs Houses]! Give her a Memo. Kick her out. Stupid Yellow B***h!” One of plaintiff's co-workers from Isaacs Houses, who had cursed and laughed at her and said “F**k Asians” whenever she saw Plaintiff, also had been re-assigned to Smith Houses. When this coworker learned of plaintiff's transfer, she called some of plaintiff's coworkers at Smith Houses who subsequently, on many occasions, shouted insulting words to plaintiff in the women’s restroom.

How was summary judgment granted in this case? I ask that question rhetorically. This evidence permits a jury verdict in plaintiff's favor, and the Court of Appeals (Bianco, Sack and Lee) reverses the grant of summary judgment in favor of the Housing Authority. The Second Circuit notes that the district court resolved a series of disputed fact issues in finding that some of plaintiff's claims lacked credibility. For instance, the trial court said it would have been impossible for plaintiff to endure harassment from coworkers and supervisors if she also testified that she was working alone, but the Court of Appeals notes that working alone does not mean she did have occasion to interact with other NYCHA workers. This case will therefore go to trial.