In Krause v. Kelehan, 17-CV-1045, 2018 WL 2021484 (N.D.N.Y. April 26, 2018), the court, inter alia, held that plaintiff’s TItle VII gender discrimination claim survived dismissal.
This case involves a scenario in which an ultimate decision – here, termination – is made by one or more persons who were influenced, or motivated, by discriminatory animus of another.
Here, plaintiff alleged that defendant Kelehan
regularly “undermined [her] authority,” yelled at her, and subjected her to excessive scrutiny. PAC ¶¶ 9–11. She then states that Kelahan told her that her family was a “distraction” and once said, “That’s why I hate working with women, they’re always so emotional.” Id. ¶¶ 9, 13. She further alleges that “Defendants negligently and/or with reckless disregard to Plaintiff’s rights acted both individually and in concert to facilitate the termination of the Plaintiff knowing same was contrived, unwarranted, and without lawful basis. On information and belief, the Board did not allow such actions toward male employees.”
The court held that Plaintiff plausibly alleged her claims against her employer, on the basis thatbthat decision was influenced by the alleged harasser:
The Municipal Defendants do not argue that Kelahan’s conduct was not motivated by gender animus. Instead, they argue that Plaintiff “nowhere alleges nonconclusory facts to show the District or the Board was motivated by gender animus in approving her termination.” Municipal Defs.’ Mem. at 15. However, this argument ignores Title VII precedent, under which “a defendant institution” may be liable for the discriminatory conduct of a supervisor who “recommend[s] and thus influenc[e]s the adverse action by a non-biased decision-maker.” Doe v. Columbia Univ., 831 F.3d 46, 58–59 (2d Cir. 2016); see Holcomb v. Iona Coll., 521 F.3d 130, 143 (2d Cir. 2008) (stating that a plaintiff is “entitled to succeed, even absent evidence of illegitimate bias on the part of the ultimate decision maker, so long as the individual shown to have the impermissible bias played a meaningful role in the … process”) (quoting Bickerstaff v. Vassar Coll., 196 F.3d 435, 450 (2d Cir. 1999) ).4
Plaintiff alleges that Kelahan recommended that the Board terminate her employment using false and exaggerated information, and that the Board adopted this recommendation. PAC ¶¶ 3, 10, 13. Because the Municipal Defendants do not dispute that gender animus motivated Kelahan’s conduct, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s allegations give rise to a plausible inference that Kelahan “played a meaningful role in the” Board’s decision to terminate her employment. Holcomb, 521 F.3d at 143. Therefore, even though the Board members may have been unbiased, they terminated Plaintiff’s employment based on a recommendation from what may have been a biased supervisor. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s discrimination claims against the Municipal Defendants survive dismissal.