Hostile Work Environment Claims Resurrected From Dismissal on Timeliness Grounds

From Abdelal v. Kelly, No. 17-1166, 2018 WL 992307 (2d Cir. Feb. 21, 2018) (Summary Order):

The district court analyzed timeliness based solely on the IAB investigation that concluded on September 30, 2009. But Abdelal presented evidence of alleged harassment after that date. He contends that the Level II performance monitoring, which continued until September 2012, and the integrity tests in July 2010 and February 2011 are all part of his claims that there was a pattern of harassing conduct. “[C]onsideration of the entire scope of a hostile work environment claim, including behavior alleged outside the statutory time period, is permissible for the purpose of assessing liability, so long as an act contributing to that hostile environment takes place within the statutory time period.” Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 117, 122 S.Ct. 2061, 153 L.Ed.2d 106 (2002).
Properly construed, Abdelal’s hostile work environment claims concern a pattern of behavior that lasted until September 2012, bringing the claims within all of the relevant limitations periods. See Zerilli-Edelglass v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 333 F.3d 74, 76 (2d Cir. 2003) (construing Title VII limitations period for hostile work environment claims); N.Y. Exec. Law § 297(9) (establishing statute of limitations for claims under NYSHRL); N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-502(d) (establishing limitations period for NYCHRL).
Accordingly, we conclude that the district court erred in dismissing Abdelal’s hostile work environment claims as untimely.