Rensselaer Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't v. N.Y. State Div. of Human Rights
| Decision Date | 03 June 2015 |
| Docket Number | 520239 |
| Citation | 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 06551,15 N.Y.S.3d 227,131 A.D.3d 777 |
| Parties | In the Matter of RENSSELAER COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, Petitioner, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Napierski, VanDenburgh, Napierski & O'Connor, LLP, Albany (Shawn F. Brousseau of counsel), for petitioner.
Caroline Downey, State Division of Human Rights, New York City (Michael K. Swirsky of counsel), for New York State Division of Human Rights, respondent.
Luibrand Law Firm, PLLC, Latham (Peter J. Moschetti Jr. of Anderson, Moschetti & Taffany, PLLC, Latham, of counsel), for Lora Abbott Seabury, respondent.
Before: PETERS, P.J., McCARTHY, EGAN JR. and ROSE, JJ.
Proceeding pursuant to Executive Law § 298 () to, among other things, review a determination of the Commissioner of Human Rights which, among other things, found petitioner guilty of an unlawful discriminatory practice based on gender.
Respondent Lora Abbott Seabury filed a complaint with respondent State Division of Human Rights (hereinafter SDHR) in September 2010, alleging that, while employed by petitioner at its correctional facility, she was subjected to, among other things, sexual harassment by male coworkers. Ultimately, an Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter ALJ), after holding a hearing, found that Seabury had shown that she was sexually harassed by male coworkers and recommended that petitioner be ordered to pay Seabury nearly $450,000 in economic damages and $300,000 in noneconomic damages. The Commissioner of Human Rights adjusted the amount of economic damages to approximately $315,000, but otherwise adopted the ALJ's recommendations in all pertinent respects. Petitioner thereafter initiated this proceeding to annul the Commissioner's final determination. Seabury filed an application seeking modification and confirmation of the final determination. The consolidated proceeding was transferred by Supreme Court to this Court.
When reviewing a determination made by the Commissioner in a matter such as this one, our purview is “extremely narrow” and must focus not on whether we would have reached the same result as did the Commissioner, but instead on whether the Commissioner's determination was rational in light of the evidence presented (Matter of State Div. of Human Rights [Granelle], 70 N.Y.2d 100, 106, 517 N.Y.S.2d 715, 510 N.E.2d 799 [1987] ; accord Matter of Arcuri v. Kirkland, 113 A.D.3d 912, 914, 978 N.Y.S.2d 439 [2014] ; Matter of West Taghkanic Diner II, Inc. v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 105 A.D.3d 1106, 1107, 962 N.Y.S.2d 748 [2013] ). Such deference is due given SDHR's expertise in evaluating discrimination claims (see Matter of Arcuri v. Kirkland, 113 A.D.3d at 914, 978 N.Y.S.2d 439 ; Matter of Harrison v. Chestnut Donuts, Inc., 60 A.D.3d 1130, 1131, 874 N.Y.S.2d 609 [2009] ). A violation of Executive Law § 296 based on a hostile work environment must be supported by proof that the “workplace [was so] permeated [by a] discriminatory” atmosphere that it “alter[ed] the conditions of the [complainant's] employment” (Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 N.Y.3d 295, 310, 786 N.Y.S.2d 382, 819 N.E.2d 998 [2004] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; accord Matter of West Taghkanic Diner II, Inc. v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 105 A.D.3d at 1107, 962 N.Y.S.2d 748 ). “Where, as here, there is a finding of a hostile work environment as a result of sexual harassment, the evidence in the record must establish the pertinent elements, including proof that the discriminatory conduct occurred due to the complainant's gender” (Matter of Arcuri v. Kirkland, 113 A.D.3d at 914, 978 N.Y.S.2d 439 ; see Suriel v. Dominican Republic Educ. & Mentoring Project, Inc., 85 A.D.3d 1464, 1466, 926 N.Y.S.2d 198 [2011] ).
According to Seabury, after reporting coworker Richard Fenton for offenses that included sleeping on the job and previously grabbing her buttocks and breasts without her consent, Seabury began to be increasingly harassed by male friends of Fenton, who had been suspended as a result of the initial reports. Seabury testified that this group of men, along with Fenton, were known by the name “the boys club” within the correctional facility. Seabury further testified that one of her supervisors, Captain Hal Smith, also referred to the group of men by that phrase. According to Seabury, members of the boys club began to level slurs at both Seabury and another female employee who had reported Fenton for sexual harassment, slurs that included rat, bitch, slut and whore. The men also began making rat noises while in the presence of the two female employees. According to Seabury, one such male employee stated, “That f* * *ing bitch don't miss a f* * *ing trick” in reference to Seabury and while in her presence. Seabury explained that this harassment occurred on a daily basis and that she always reported the incidents to Smith.1 Seabury testified that Smith would tell her, “be tough” and “[y]ou need to be strong,” but failed to reprimand the offending employees. Seabury also testified that Smith communicated that he held different professional expectations for the alleged male harrasers than for Seabury, informing her that “boys will be boys” and “you know how those boys are.” When Seabury specifically reported to Smith that she believed that the fellow female employee who had also reported Fenton had been assigned, by one of the individuals in the boys club,2 to a stressful, undesirable and potentially more dangerous shift as a form of harassment, Smith suggested that Seabury go speak to the employee who had made the assignment. Seabury clarified that the same employee had also been harassing her and then asked Smith if he still thought she should go speak to him. He responded, “That's how you approach it” and explained that it was “nice” of that employee to prepare the schedule. According to Seabury, she printed explanations of illegal workplace harassment from the Internet and provided them to Smith. Such prompting was to no avail, however, as Smith did not reprimand the offending male employees.
Seabury further testified that, despite this daily harassment, she planned on continuing to work and to reach her retirement. Seabury explained that she wanted to be the first female sergeant to retire from the correctional facility, and additional evidence established that Seabury had worked in excess of 17 years, more than two-thirds the number of years necessary to receive a pension based on 25 years of service. She elaborated that another female sergeant previously had worked at the facility but had not reached retirement. Without specifically identifying the alleged culprits, Seabury testified that employees would make known their plans to cause that female sergeant to cry during her shift. Seabury explained that these unidentified employees continued such harassing behavior until that female sergeant quit. Seabury further explained that, notwithstanding her retirement goal, the harassment she suffered, which was not ameliorated despite her daily reports to her supervisor, eventually caused her to leave her employment.
Considering the evidence presented at the hearing, there is a rational basis for the determination that, but for Seabury's gender, she would not have suffered the harassment that she described and that such harassment altered the conditions of her employment so as to create an abusive work environment. Notably, the ALJ credited Seabury's testimony, and this Court will defer to that determination (see Matter of Arcuri v. Kirkland, 113 A.D.3d at 914, 978 N.Y.S.2d 439 ; Matter of West Taghkanic Diner II, Inc. v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 105 A.D.3d at 1108, 962 N.Y.S.2d 748 ). Relying on that credited testimony, the proof established that the persons harassing Seabury were all male members of a group of friends and coworkers who were identified, as a group, by their gender. In addition, many of the slurs leveled at Seabury and the other female who reported Fenton's sexual harassment invoked the victims' gender (compare Matter of Grand Union Co. v. Mercado, 263 A.D.2d 923, 924–925, 694 N.Y.S.2d 524 [1999] ). Further, a reasonable person could conclude that Smith indicated to Seabury that he held different expectations for male and female employees and that women employees were required to be strong and tough while male employees were permitted to “be boys,” without any reprimand. At a minimum, such statements by Smith and his lack of corrective action condoned such conduct (see Matter of New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs. v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 53 A.D.3d 823, 825, 861 N.Y.S.2d 494 [2008] ), and there is a rational inference that Smith's directive to Seabury, his inferior, that she should confront one of the offenders regarding his gender-based harassment of another female employee effectively encouraged the harassment that Seabury suffered (see generally Matter of State Div. of Human Rights v. St. Elizabeth's Hosp., 66 N.Y.2d 684, 687, 496 N.Y.S.2d 411, 487 N.E.2d 268 [1985] ). Accordingly, the Commissioner's determination was rational in light of the evidence presented (see Matter of West Taghkanic Diner II, Inc. v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 105 A.D.3d at 1107, 962 N.Y.S.2d 748 ; Matter of New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs. v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 53 A.D.3d at 825, 861 N.Y.S.2d 494 ; Matter of R & B Autobody & Radiator, Inc. v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 31 A.D.3d 989, 990–991, 819 N.Y.S.2d 599 [2006] ; Matter of Grand Union Co. v. Mercado, 263 A.D.2d at 924, 694 N.Y.S.2d 524 ).
We will not reduce Seabury's $300,000 award for noneconomic injuries. An award for noneconomic damages will be upheld where it is reasonably related to the wrongdoing,...
To continue reading
Request your trial