The defendants in a suit over alleged sexual harassment and employer retaliation at New York County Defender Services painted a radically different picture of the plaintiff in the suit, staff attorney Alexandra Bonacarti, in a response to her amended complaint filed in New York County Supreme Court in October.

While Bonacarti's complaint alleged malignant indifference from management towards aggressive and persistent harassment by a love-spurned colleague, the defendants—NYCD's executive director Stan Germán, supervising attorney Christopher Boyle and the organization itself—countered in their response filed last week that it was Bonacarti's problematic behavior that led to many of the issues in dispute.

At the core of Bonacarti's complaint is the dynamics between her and Boyle—something neither side disputes.

While the plaintiff claims Boyle unsuccessfully pursued her over the course of years before things began to turn particularly acrimonious in 2015, the defendants allege that there is far more to the story.

Defendants said that, despite Bonacarti's casting of their interpersonal dynamic as one-sided, things with Boyle were far more reciprocal. During a period ahead of the substantive allegations in the complaint, defendants claimed Boyle and Bonacarti “occasionally dated outside of work.” The pair went to the beach and the movies, had dinner and celebrated the plaintiff's 2006 birthday together.

Bonacarti, the response said, invited Boyle back to her apartment “on multiple occasions.”

Bonacarti's attorney, Beranbaum Menken name attorney John Beranbaum, denied “categorically” that his client ever had sexual relations with Boyle.

The response to the complaint stated that, in 2006, Boyle ceased socializing with Bonacarti and reconciled with his wife. From this point forward, defendants said that Boyle kept his distance from Bonacarti—this, despite allegations that Boyle let his wife in an attempt to be with Bonacarti and, in 2010, Bonacarti said she told Boyle that she would not ever have a romantic relationship with him.

The contrasting narratives is in sharpest relief regarding Bonacarti herself. The complaint offers up the plaintiff as a dedicated employee with two decades of service at the organization. Her supervisor is noted recalling at one point how she volunteered to switch arraignment shifts to help her colleagues. Prior to a suspension she alleged was retaliatory in nature, Bonacarti claims to have never once been disciplined. She has been, the complaint claimed, a talented, dedicated, highly effective legal advocate.

Defendants argue this is not the case. Instead, Bonacarti is alleged to have been a difficult employee whose often combative behavior routinely created problems for staff and court employees. She is described at various times as exhibiting disturbed behavior, of displaying offensive conduct in the office, and of being out of control in the courtroom. There are claims of profanity-laced tirades, doors being slammed and insensitive and inappropriate statements. Germán alleges to have had several conversations with her about her conduct in the office.

These qualities are showcased in the defendants' version of a critical interaction between Bonacarti and Boyle on May 10. Bonacarti's description of a looming, leering Boyle is contrasted with defendants account, which places Boyle at the arraignment in a benign context—delivering documents and discussing cases with attorneys, despite plaintiff's claim that supervisors were rarely present.

Boyle, who is repeatedly said in defendants' response to have actively avoided the plaintiff whenever possible, allegedly did not know she was on duty. It was she who approached him, they contend, to interrupt a work-related conversation and, unprovoked, berate him, demanding he leave. Boyle allegedly feared Bonacarti's “outburst” in front of court personnel would lead to an attempt to hit him.

Rather than a challenging shout, as depicted by the plaintiff, defendants said Boyle's “Enough!” was a loud whisper in response to something close to verbal assault.

Boyle agrees that he left shortly thereafter, but did so, according to the response, to get away from Bonacarti, who allegedly screamed at him outside of the courtroom that she was on the phone with NYCD's director Carolyn Wilson.

Bonacarti's three-week suspension after this episode was, then, justifiable, the defendants allege. Far from coming out of nowhere, the defendants' action was an appropriate action based on the May 10 episode, which continued a pattern of unprofessional conduct in the office and the courtroom. Germán's actions at this juncture and before were described as attempting to handle a difficult situation created almost entirely by the plaintiff.

Regarding the 2016 performance evaluation that Bonacarti alleges was handled in a sexist manner as part of an early retaliation after she raised concerns about Boyle's elevation to management, the defendants claim it was an attempt by Germán—then only a year or so into his current role—to initially help Bonacarti. Defendants allege that Bonacarti was the only staff attorney that Germán had received complaints about from court personnel. He was concerned she was “burnt out,” in part from dealing with an ill family member, and offered her a three-month paid leave to deal with personal matters.

Her response, defendants claim, was to accuse Germán of trying to “get rid” of her.

Throughout the time period in question, Germán allegedly sought to keep the situation between Bonacarti and Boyle at the level of detente defendants claim existed for over a decade prior to Boyle's elevation to management. By the time of her suspension, this attempt had been thwarted by the plaintiff, according to the defendants. On top of that were allegations of racially inappropriate remarks, verbal warnings over her behavior towards junior attorneys, and a pattern of regularly arriving as much as two hours late to work—all of which justified her suspension, defendants claim.

To the alleged sham investigation into Bonacarti's harassment claim filed against Boyle after the May 10 incident, the defendants said the investigation was resolved within a week's time. Allegations a personal friend of Germán's at the office oversaw it rather than someone from the HR department as a way to throw the investigation in Boyle's favor are refuted, defendants said, because the HR official's prior interactions with Bonacarti were so negative that she didn't believe she could be impartial in handling the case.

Bonacarti's counsel Beranbaum said in a statement that the defendants failed to deny the allegations, trying instead to cover them up “by making ad hominem attacks” against his client.

“Defendants attack Ms. Bonacarti by portraying her as a hysterical woman, a common gender stereotype,” Beranbaum said. “The fact that Ms. Bonacarti has brought legal action against defendants for violations of her civil rights does not give them license to malign her in their legal papers. And, given that Ms. Bonacarti continues working for NYCDS, to denigrate her this way does a disservice not only to her, but to the organization and their clients.”

A spokeswoman for NYCDS declined to comment further on behalf of the organization, stating that the response speaks for itself.