On March 31, 2023, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani New York Partner Kuuku Minnah-Donkoh obtained a victory in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, securing summary judgment on a retaliation claim against the firm’s client, a security company.
The plaintiff, a male security/patrol supervisor, alleged he was sexually harassed by another female supervisor, who used vulgar language that was sexual in nature towards him on multiple occasions. The plaintiff further alleged he engaged in protected activity on multiple occasions, including, but not limited to: (i) complaining to the company about his coworker’s statements; (ii) filing a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC; (iii) filing his federal lawsuit; (iv) amending his federal complaint; and (v) making a court appearance in connection with his federal lawsuit. The plaintiff alleged the company retaliated against him for his various protected activities by, among other things, subjecting him to close monitoring; issuing him unwarranted written warnings; suspending him; and ultimately terminating his employment.
In granting summary judgment on the plaintiff’s retaliation claim, the court agreed that several of the activities the plaintiff claimed constituted protected activities were not protected activities. For example, with respect to the complaint the plaintiff made to the company about his alleged harasser’s comments, the court agreed there was a prolonged period of interpersonal conflict between the plaintiff and his alleged harasser leading up to the latter’s comments at issue. The court also agreed that certain explicit expressions “are commonplace in certain circles, and more often than not, when these expressions are used, … their use has no connection whatsoever with the sexual acts to which they make reference.” Accordingly, the court agreed that the plaintiff’s complaint about his alleged harasser’s comments did not constitute protected activity because the plaintiff had not demonstrated a good-faith belief that his alleged harasser’s comments were motivated by his gender when he complained about her conduct.
As to the plaintiff’s activities that did constitute protected activities, the court agreed that, with the exception of the termination of the plaintiff’s employment, the plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of retaliation based on those other protected activities because: (i) the temporal proximity between some of the protected activities and subsequent adverse employment actions were too attenuated to establish a causal connection; or (ii) there was no evidence the supervisors who issued written warnings to the plaintiff were aware of any of his protected activities. With respect to the termination of the plaintiff’s employment, the court found that the company had met its burden of articulating legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for the termination.
The court agreed to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim under the local New York City Human Rights Law. Should the plaintiff decide to refile his hostile work environment claim in state court, the plaintiff will face an uphill battle overcoming the federal court’s finding that the alleged harasser’s comments were not motivated by the plaintiff’s gender.