Panel Reinstates Gender Discrimination Claim, Pointing to Contradiction in Lower Court Ruling
"The [lower] court should not have dismissed the [city Human Rights Claim] claim of gender discrimination while sustaining the claim of hostile work environment due to sexual harassment," an Appellate Division, First Department panel wrote in an opinion Tuesday.
September 05, 2019 at 02:49 PM
4 minute read
A state appeals court has reversed the dismissal of a former nursing supervisor's gender discrimination claim brought under city's Human Rights Law—pointing out the contradiction of a lower court dismissing that claim while allowing a related hostile-work-environment-due-to-sexual-harassment claim to go forward.
"The [lower] court should not have dismissed the claim of gender discrimination while sustaining the claim of hostile work environment due to sexual harassment," an Appellate Division, First Department panel wrote in its opinion in Crookendale v. New York City Health and Hospitals issued Tuesday.
"The [New York] City HRL does not differentiate between sexual harassment and other forms of gender discrimination, but requires that 'sexual harassment' be viewed as 'one species of sex- or gender-based discrimination,'" the panel continued, quoting Williams v. New York City Hous. Auth.
The unanimous panel pointed out that both claims had been brought under the Human Rights Law as part of plaintiff Debra Crookendale's 2015-filed lawsuit against New York City Health and Hospitals Corp. In her suit, Crookendale asks for compensatory damages of $5 million. And she alleges, among other things, that for roughly a year and a half—until she left her job unwillingly in 2014—a female superior at a Queens hospital groped her and asked her out repeatedly, exposed herself to Crookendale, commented on her looks and smell, and retaliated against her at the workplace when she wouldn't comply with the superior's many advances, according to court documents.
In its opinion Tuesday, the First Department panel affirmed Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Alexander Tisch's 2018 dismissal of Crookendale's lawsuit claims of constructive discharge and retaliation.
But the panel, composed of Justices David Friedman, Peter Tom, Barbara Kapnick and Marcy Kahn, reversed Tisch's dismissal—made in the same decision and order—of Crookendale's broad Human Rights Law claim of gender discrimination.
Addressing the gender discrimination claim, and why sufficient evidence to defeat summary judgment dismissal had been shown, the panel wrote that "in her affidavit in opposition to defendant's [Health and Hospitals Corp.'s] motion, [Crookendale] sufficiently described being touched and complimented inappropriately to permit a jury reasonably to find that she was treated 'less well' than her male colleagues because of her gender and that the conduct complained of was neither petty nor trivial," citing Hernandez v. Kaisman.
In his decision, Tisch pointed out that Crookendale—a former U.S. Army Captain—contended that Marie Hyppolite, a former direct nursing supervisor at Queens Hospital Center, would harass her continuously but that allegedly there were not direct witnesses. Tisch added that Crookendale alleged that Hyppolite retaliated against her by taking actions such as manipulating staffing levels to make her appear to be an unsatisfactory manager, giving a negative evaluation, and working to get her dismissed.
Tisch wrote in part, in regard to Crookendale's gender discrimination claim, that while certain prongs of the claim were met "plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case however, because she fails to demonstrate an adverse employment action," as he explained why allegations of constructive discharge failed.
Queens Hospital Center, where Crookendale worked, is part the Health and Hospitals Corp., which is said to be the largest municipal health care organization in the nation.
The city law department represents Health and Hospitals Corp. in the action.
Eric Eichenholtz, division chief of labor and employment at the law department, said, "We appreciate the court recognizing that the plaintiff's constructive discharge and retaliation claims were meritless and should be dismissed. We will review the decision and determine the next steps concerning the gender-based claims."
Brian Heller of Schwartz Perry & Heller in Manhattan, who represented Crookendale in the appeal, according to the panel's opinion, could not be reached for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAttorneys 'On the Move': Structured Finance Attorney Joins Hunton Andrews Kurth; Foley Adds IP Partner
4 minute readNY Civil Liberties Legal Director Stepping Down After Lengthy Tenure
Former Top Aide to NYC Mayor Is Charged With Bribery Conspiracy
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250