In Matthew v. Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts et al, No. 21 Civ. 5337 (JPC), 2022 WL 4626511 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2022), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s race-based hostile work environment claim asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
From the decision:
Taking into consideration all of Matthew’s allegations, she adequately alleges a hostile work environment claim against TCPA under Title VII. Matthew alleges that black employees were “spoken down to,” Compl. ¶ 30, that they were “spoken to in a belittling and insulting tone and manner,” id. ¶ 30, that they were “responded to in a rude, demeaning and dismissive manner,” id. ¶ 31, that they were paid differently than white employees, id. ¶ 33, that they were reprimanded and subject to disciplinary action at a higher rate than white employees, id. ¶ 36, and that this conduct occurred “on a daily basis,” id. ¶ 37. A reasonable person would find this cumulative environment hostile or abusive, as further evidenced by multiple alleged instances of complaints presented by black employees at TCPA. Id. ¶¶ 31, 32, 34, 42. Matthew also has sufficiently pleaded that she subjectively believed the environment was hostile as indicated by her own complaints. Id. ¶¶ 38, 40, 43, 47. And finally, the alleged conduct, all directed at black employees, created such an environment on the basis of Matthew’s race.
While at least some of these allegations concern conduct outside of the 300-day window of the EEOC complaint, “[a] charge alleging a hostile work environment claim … will not be time barred so long as all acts which constitute the claim are part of the same unlawful employment practice and at least one act falls within the time period.” Davis-Garett, 921 F.3d at 42 (alterations in original) (quoting Morgan, 526 U.S. at 113-14); see also Morgan, 526 U.S. at 105 (“[C]onsideration of the entire scope of a hostile work environment claim, including behavior alleged outside the statutory time period, is permissible for the purposes of assessing liability, so long as an act contributing to that hostile environment takes place within the statutory time period.”). As Matthew alleges that acts making up the hostile work environment continued “on a daily basis” throughout her employment, which ended on July 14, 2020, Compl. ¶ 49, at least some of the relevant acts allegedly occurred within the statutory period and so all may be considered in assessing the hostile work environment claim.
The court also declined to dismiss plaintiff’s claim under the New York State Human Rights Law as to one defendant’s conduct (considering the alleged conduct relative to the law’s amendment to impose a more lenient standard), as well as under the New York City Human Rights Law.