Williams v. Breaking Ground Housing Development Fund Corporation

Background

Derick L. Williams worked as a porter at Breaking Ground. He alleged that Beth Cologne, an employee of a partner organization, complained that Williams touched her arm and made inappropriate comments. Williams said he extended his arm when Cologne nearly tripped, told her he would have picked her up if she fell, and asked how she was feeling, but denied touching her. He alleged that Karen Warner, a building manager and Cologne’s friend and roommate, reviewed surveillance video and fired him without an investigation for violating a policy against sexual conduct.

Williams also alleged that Cologne had used terms such as “love,” “honey,” and “baby” toward him for almost two months. He said he reported those comments to Warner, who dismissed them as joking. Williams further alleged that he reported hazardous, flammable materials to Warner, his supervisor Muhamet Islamovic, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. He claimed that his termination was retaliation for reporting sexual harassment and safety concerns, and also alleged age discrimination.

Williams represented himself. The court construed his complaint as asserting claims for an adverse employment action, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law, plus retaliation under New York Labor Law. The court noted that the Occupational Safety and Health Act does not provide a private retaliation claim and therefore did not construe the complaint as asserting one.

Motion-to-Dismiss Standard

At the motion-to-dismiss stage, the court must accept well-pleaded factual allegations as true and determine whether they plausibly show a right to relief. Because Williams was representing himself, the court was required to read his complaint liberally and interpret it to raise the strongest arguments it reasonably suggested. That rule did not eliminate the requirement that his claims be supported by enough facts to be plausible.

Claims Dismissed

The court dismissed Williams’s Title VII claims against Warner and Islamovic to the extent those claims sought to impose individual liability, because individuals are not subject to liability under Title VII.

The court also dismissed Williams’s claims to the extent they alleged that he suffered an adverse employment action because of his age or another protected characteristic. The complaint contained no factual allegations about Williams’s age, age-related comments, or other facts supporting an inference that Breaking Ground fired him because of age or another protected characteristic.

Claims Allowed to Proceed

The court denied the motion to dismiss Williams’s hostile-work-environment claims under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The relevant allegations were that Cologne repeatedly called Williams “love,” “baby,” or “honey” for nearly two months and that Warner dismissed his complaints. The defendants had not addressed those allegations or explained why they were legally insufficient.

The court also allowed Williams’s retaliation claims to proceed. The complaint alleged retaliation for reporting sexual harassment under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. It also alleged retaliation for reporting safety concerns to his managers and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration under New York Labor Law. The court stated that the defendants had not addressed the New York Labor Law claim and had not adequately engaged with the allegations supporting the other retaliation claims.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The claims continuing in the case were: hostile-work-environment and retaliation claims against Breaking Ground under Title VII; hostile-work-environment and retaliation claims against all defendants under the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law; and a retaliation claim against all defendants under New York Labor Law. The court stated that a separate case-management plan would be entered and directed the clerk to terminate the motion docket entry.