| Barnum v New York City Tr. Auth. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 03855 [62 AD3d 736] |
| May 12, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Flora Barnum, Respondent, v New York City TransitAuthority, Appellant, et al., Defendant. |
—[*1] The Berkman Law Office, LLC, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Ephrem J. Wertenteil of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action, inter alia, in effect, to recover damages for discrimination in employment on thebasis of sex in violation of Executive Law § 296, the defendant New York City TransitAuthority appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rothenberg, J.), datedJune 11, 2008, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofaras asserted against it.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion of the defendantNew York City Transit Authority for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar asasserted against it is granted.
On March 2, 2004, a supervisor filling in for the plaintiff's regular supervisor made offensivecomments to the plaintiff in the presence of other employees, touched her thigh and, a fewminutes later, patted her on the buttocks as she was working. The defendant New York CityTransit Authority (hereinafter the NYCTA) investigated the plaintiff's complaint of sexualharassment, found it to be substantiated, and disciplined the supervisor, suspending him withoutpay for 20 days and prohibiting him from supervising the plaintiff for a year. Subsequently, theplaintiff allegedly learned that coworkers were making disparaging remarks about herconcerning the incident, which negatively affected her relationship with them. Additionally, on aSaturday approximately four months after the sexual harassment incident, the plaintiff wasassigned to work for the day at a [*2]station where the offendingsupervisor usually worked during the week. Although he was not on duty that day, the plaintiffbelieved she would see him, suffered a panic attack, and fell and hit her head, requiring medicaltreatment. The plaintiff commenced this action, alleging, in effect, that she had been subjected toemployment discrimination on the basis of sex due to a hostile work environment.
Under Executive Law § 296, "[a] hostile work environment exists when the workplaceis permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe orpervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive workingenvironment" (Morse v Cowtan & Tout,Inc., 41 AD3d 563, 564 [2007]; see Harris v Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 US 17,21 [1993]; Forrest v Jewish Guild forthe Blind, 3 NY3d 295, 310 [2004]). "[T]he conduct must both have altered theconditions of the victim's employment by being subjectively perceived as abusive by theplaintiff, and have created an objectively hostile or abusive environment—one that areasonable person would find to be so" (Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d at311). "To recover against an employer for the discriminatory acts of its employee, the plaintiffmust demonstrate that the employer became a party to such conduct by encouraging, condoning,or approving it" (Beharry v Guzman,33 AD3d 742, 743 [2006]; see generally Matter of State Div. of Human Rights v St.Elizabeth's Hosp., 66 NY2d 684, 687 [1985]). Moreover, under Executive Law § 296,it is a defense to a claim of harassment arising from the conduct of a supervisory employee thatthe employer "exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly [the] discriminatoryconduct . . . and that the plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of anypreventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to otherwise avoid harm"(Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d at 312 n 10; see Burlington Industries,Inc. v Ellerth, 524 US 742, 765 [1998]; Farragher v Boca Raton, 524 US 775,805-808 [1998]).
In support of its motion for summary judgment, the NYCTA established that it did notapprove or condone the behavior of its supervisor (see Beharry v Guzman, 33 AD3d at743; Ellis v Child Dev. Support Corp.,5 AD3d 430 [2004]). Further, viewing the totality of the evidence in the light mostfavorable to the plaintiff (see Gonzalez v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 269 AD2d 495, 496[2000]), the offensive conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions ofher employment and create an objectively hostile or abusive work environment (see Thompson v Lamprecht Transp.,39 AD3d 846, 847 [2007]; Morse v Cowtan & Tout, Inc., 41 AD3d at 564),and, in any event, the NYCTA exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly thediscriminatory conduct engaged in by its supervisory employee. Thus, the NYCTA made a primafacie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the hostile workenvironment cause of action (see Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d at 305;Beharry v Guzman, 33 AD3d at 743; Thompson v Lamprecht Transp., 39 AD3dat 847). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
This action was commenced in 2004, but the current liberalized standards of interpretation(see Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-130; Local Civil Rights RestorationAct [Local Law No. 85 (2005) of City of New York §§ 1, 7]) applicable to the NewYork City Human Rights Law (Administrative Code of City of NY §§ 8-101 etseq.) did not become effective until 2005 (see Local Civil Rights Restoration Act[Local Law No. 85 (2005) of City of New York § 12]). Consequently, to the extent thatthe complaint may be read as asserting a cause of action pursuant to the New York City HumanRights Law, the issue of whether summary judgment should have been awarded to the NYCTAdismissing that cause of action must be assessed in accordance with the law in effect as of thedate of the commencement of the action (id.), which required us to apply the [*3]standards for recovery under title VII of the federal Civil RightsAct of 1964 (42 USC § 2000e-2 et seq.) to claims asserted pursuant to both theExecutive Law and the New York City Human Rights Law (see McGrath v Toys "R" Us, Inc., 3 NY3d 421, 429 [2004]; Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3NY3d 295, 305 n 3 [2004]; cf.Morse v Cowtan & Tout, Inc., 41 AD3d 563 [2007]). Applying those standards,summary judgment should have been awarded to the NYCTA dismissing any such cause ofaction.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the NYCTA's motion for summaryjudgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Belenand Lott, JJ., concur.