A recent decision, Ramroop v. Communications Workers of America Local 1182, No. 157047/2019, 2022 WL 17574009 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Dec. 08, 2022), illustrates how to impute liability for a sexually hostile work environment claim against a defendant – in this case, a union.
From the decision:
Local 1182 argues that a claim of vicarious liability for sexual harassment under the NYSHRL is not viable unless the plaintiff can show that a defendant-employer had knowledge of the alleged harassment and acquiesced in it or subsequently condoned it. It claims that, when the Board found out about the plaintiff’s claims, it immediately took corrective action, including removing Rahim from his position as President of Local 1182. An employer can also be liable for a hostile work environment when it encouraged or acquiesced in the unwelcome sexual conduct by an employee or subsequently condoned the offending behavior (see Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d 295, 311 [2004]; Sukram v Anjost Corp., 72 AD3d 491[1st Dept. 2010]. However, proof of condonation and acquiescence is not necessary where discriminatory conduct is perpetrated by a high-level managerial employee or someone sufficiently elevated in the employer’s business organization to be viewed as its proxy (see Randall v Tod–Nik Audiology, 270 AD2d 38 [1st Dept. 2000]; Matter of Father Belle Community Ctr. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 221 AD3d 44, 54–55 [4th Dept 1996]). Accordingly, it would not be appropriate to award summary judgment to Local 1182 even in the absence of any evidence that they condoned or acquiesced in Rahim’s behavior.
Additionally, the plaintiff has claimed that she, as well as other employees of Local 1182, made complaints about Rahim’s behavior to union executives that were either ignored or resulted in no disciplinary action taken against Rahim. Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that Local 1182 was previously aware that Rahim had a history of sexually harassing female employees but did nothing to prevent it. Although Local 1182 disputes this, the plaintiff’s claim that the initial complaints made by her and other female employees about Rahim’s behavior were ignored is sufficient to raise issues of fact even if she were required to show that Local 1182 condoned or acquiesced in Rahim’s behavior (see Vitale v Rosina Food Prods., 283 AD2d 141, 146 [4th Dept 2001]). It should also be noted that an employer’s liability for sexual harassment committed by one if its employees is even stricter under the more plaintiff-friendly NYCHRL (see McRedmond v Sutton Place Rest. & Bar, Inc., 95 AD3d 671, 673 [1st Dept 2012]).
Based on the foregoing, the court denied the union’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claims of sexual harassment and hostile work environment under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.