Delancey v. FOX Corporation

Background

Andrew Delancey alleged that Justin Wells sexually assaulted him while both worked as Fox producers. Delancey alleged that Wells used his position and influence at Fox to direct Delancey’s work, affect his career prospects, and link professional opportunities to Wells’s sexual demands. After Delancey resisted, Wells allegedly interfered with another job opportunity and took steps that stalled Delancey’s advancement at Fox.

Delancey also alleged that Fox knew or should have known about sexual misconduct by Wells and another supervisor, Mykel McCarthy, and that McCarthy discouraged employees from reporting misconduct to human resources or upper management. Delancey brought New York-law assault and battery claims against Wells and claims against Fox under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. Fox Corporation and Fox News Network, LLC moved to dismiss the claims against them for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Claims Against Fox News Network, LLC

The court held that Delancey plausibly stated a hostile-work-environment claim under the New York State Human Rights Law. A hostile work environment is an employment setting made abusive by sufficiently serious or repeated harassment, combined with a basis for holding the employer responsible. The court explained that conduct outside the workplace may support such a claim when it has a sufficient connection to, or effect on, the employee’s work environment.

The court found sufficient alleged connections here: Wells allegedly assaulted Delancey outside work after tying the encounter to career benefits; Wells allegedly continued directing Delancey’s work afterward; Wells allegedly threatened Delancey’s career; Delancey allegedly feared reporting the misconduct; and Delancey alleged that his career stalled and that he left his job. The court also found that Delancey plausibly alleged Fox’s responsibility under both a negligence theory, based on Fox’s alleged knowledge or failure to respond reasonably, and a strict-liability theory based on Wells’s alleged authority to take significant employment actions.

The court also held that Delancey plausibly stated a quid pro quo harassment claim under the New York State Human Rights Law. This theory applies when an employee’s acceptance or rejection of unwelcome sexual conduct is used as the basis for employment decisions. The court found that Delancey adequately alleged that Wells was a supervisor for purposes of the claim because Wells allegedly could cause Delancey’s termination or affect his promotion, even though Wells was not Delancey’s direct supervisor.

Because the New York City Human Rights Law generally provides at least as much protection as the state law, the court held that Delancey’s New York City claim also survived the motion to dismiss.

Claims Against Fox Corporation

The court dismissed Delancey’s claims against Fox Corporation. Delancey alleged that Fox Corporation employed him in 2008, but he conceded that Fox Corporation was not formed until 2018. The court found that this allegation could not plausibly establish that Fox Corporation controlled the employment decisions affecting him at the relevant time.

The court also rejected, at the pleading stage, Delancey’s proposed successor-liability theory. Successor liability can sometimes make a later company responsible for obligations of an earlier company, including when there was a merger or a similar continuation of the earlier business. But the court found that the complaint and submitted company filings did not adequately allege that News Corporation employed Delancey in 2008 or had a single-employer relationship with his employer. The court therefore did not need to decide whether News Corporation was a predecessor of Fox Corporation.

Because Delancey requested permission to amend and materials submitted with his opposition suggested that additional facts might cure the deficiencies, the court dismissed the claims against Fox Corporation without prejudice.

Disposition

The court stated that Fox’s motion was granted in part and denied in part. Delancey’s claims against Fox Corporation were dismissed without prejudice. In all other respects, including the claims against Fox News Network, LLC addressed by the motion, Fox’s motion was denied. The order did not rule on the merits of Delancey’s claims against Wells because Wells was not the subject of this motion.