In Crawford v. ExlService.com, LLC, 2019 WL 5887214 (SDNY Nov. 12, 2019), the court, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
The court summarized the basis law that “[t]o establish a hostile work environment claim under Title VII and NYSHRL, the plaintiff must show that harassment has reached a certain qualitative level that it is sufficiently severe or pervasive [so as] to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment.”
Applying the law to the facts, the court concluded:
In opposing summary judgment, Crawford cites a few sex-related comments by managers, the company’s skewed diversity ratio, Crawford and another employee’s impressions that the company favored Indian men over non-Indian women, and a laundry list of instances in which Crawford claims she was treated worse than her male Indian counterparts. Although it is a close call, evaluating the totality of the circumstances in the light most favorable to Crawford, the Court concludes that the hostile work environment claims cannot be dismissed at this juncture. It may well be that, after trial, the jury will find that Crawford did not suffer severe and pervasive harassment that altered her employment conditions. But on this record, the Court cannot conclude as a matter of law that no reasonable juror could reach the opposite conclusion.
The court also noted that since it found issues of material fact as to plaintiff’s federal (Title VII) and state law claims, denial of summary judgment was also warranted on plaintiff’s claim under the comparatively broader NYC Human Rights Law.