Eastern District of New York awards sexual harassment plaintiff $1.3 million in damages

A trial judge in the Eastern District of New York has sustained as hostile work environment verdict and ruled the plaintiff, who endured years of sexist flyers, comments, and gestures from supervisors, may recover $1 million in compensatory damages and $300,000 in punitive damages.

The case is Russo v. Tuttnauer USA Company Ltd, 21-cv-01720, 2025 WL 1604063 (E.D.N.Y. June 6, 2025). The case was tried in January 2025. Frederick K. Brewington, Esq., tried the case. Along with Scott Korenbaum, I handled the post-trial motions. The factual portion of the ruling reveals a locker-room styled workplace where supervisors left anonymous flyers in Russo's office depicting sexist and generally vulgar comments about Russo and other female coworkers. We also have some gestures/actions that are too provocative to describe here. Here is how the district court (Hon. Joan M. Azrack) handled the issues:

1. One defendant, Basile, argued that he could not be held liable under the New York State Human Rights Law because the harassment attributed to him predated the statute of limitations. While some of the harassment occurred prior to August 15, 2017, the jury was able to find that, in early 2018, Basile himself gave plaintiff an "anonymous" flyer that made a sexist reference to a roll of toilet paper shortly after she complained to Basile about the lack of toilet paper in the women's bathroom. The jury was able to assume that Basile was responsible for this flyer. Since this missive was similar in tone and message to the sexist flyers that pre- and post-dated the August 15, 2017 statute of limitations, the jury was able to find that Basile aided-and-abetted the harassment, and that his toilet paper flyer was part of a continuing violation. Basile also sent sexist emails to plaintiff prior to August 15, 2017. Also, before and after August 15, 2017, Basile, a supervisor, did not investigate plaintiff's complaints about the work environment or intervene when others in his presence made sexist comments about female employees; Basile himself made sexist comments, as well. All of this was part of the continuing violation, even if some of the harassment predated August 15, 2017.

2. Since the jury awarded $2.5 million for pain and suffering, defendants sought a remittitur. The district court agrees this verdict is excessive under New York law. In doing so, the court allocates all the damages under state law (less one dollar under Title VII) which does not cap such damages; that procedure is appropriate when the plaintiff sues under state and federal law. Judge Azrack finds this case is comparable to other "egregious" cases under the three-part matrix adopted by the Second Circuit. Cases that fall into that category can reach $1 million in pain and suffering, including Turley v. ISG Lackawanna, 774 F.3d 140 (2d Cir. 2014), where the plaintiff was awarded $1.4 million in 2025 dollars, and Zeno v. Pine Plains Central School District, 702 F.3d 655 (2d Cir. 2012), where the Title VI student-plaintiff recovered $1.56 million in damages (in 2025 dollars) for student-on-student bullying. We do not see too many $1 million employment discrimination verdicts sustained post-trial, but Russo's case joins that limited universe. The reason for this, the district court holds, is that Russo put on extensive evidence of her pain and suffering, including panic attacks and medication, and trial court put on a treating physician and lay corroborators on the extent of Russo's pain and suffering. 

3. As for punitive damages, the question here is whether Russo may reach the full $300,000 cap under Title VII. Without arguing that the evidence did not entitle the plaintiff to punitive damages, Defendants instead claimed the company was too small for that cap and that plaintiff may only recover $50,000. But, the trial court held, we have to include the hundreds of employees working for the parent company, based in Israel. The trial court applies a complicated analysis in determining whether the plaintiff may point to the employer's foreign workforce in reaching the $300,000 cap. The court also applies the "integrated enterprise" cases in determining whether to aggregate all the employees for this purpose. Since everyone in the company answered to the home office in Israel, and the parent company made the decision to terminate the plaintiff's employment, Tuttauer USA operated as the sales-arm to the parent company. The $300,000 cap, reserved for the largest employers, Title VII, applies here.