Beniquez v. New York State Unified Court System

Background

Elizabeth Beniquez, a court officer employed by the New York State Unified Court System (UCS), sued UCS and Gerald Filomio, another UCS employee. Her remaining claims alleged a sexually hostile work environment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Beniquez alleged that Filomio, who later became a sergeant and sometimes supervised her work, made repeated unwanted personal contacts and romantic or sexual advances between July and September 2021. The alleged conduct included saying that he wanted to hear her voice, grabbing her waist and kissing her neck, leaving a spa gift certificate and personal notes at her home, repeatedly contacting her after she asked him to stop, and appearing in her courtroom when he was not assigned there. UCS investigated her complaints. The investigation found her allegations against Filomio substantiated, and Filomio was later suspended without pay for three months after disciplinary proceedings.

Beniquez filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on November 7, 2022. She filed this lawsuit on August 30, 2023. Her retaliation claims were later voluntarily dismissed with prejudice, leaving the discrimination claims addressed in the summary-judgment motions.

UCS’s Motion

The court granted UCS’s motion for summary judgment on Beniquez’s Title VII hostile-work-environment claim. Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

The parties agreed that conduct occurring before January 11, 2022, was outside the 300-day period preceding Beniquez’s EEOC charge. The court held that Beniquez identified no timely discriminatory act attributable to UCS. Although Filomio allegedly called the courtroom where she worked after that date, the evidence showed that he did not speak with Beniquez, and the calls to other court officers did not amount to sex-based discrimination or show that an earlier hostile work environment continued. Because the claim was untimely, the court did not address UCS’s other arguments.

The court also noted that sovereign immunity barred Beniquez’s state- and city-law claims against UCS, leaving only the Title VII claim against that defendant.

Filomio’s Motion

The court granted Filomio’s motion for summary judgment in part. It held that Beniquez presented enough evidence for a reasonable jury to find that Filomio had a supervisory or managerial role and that he participated in creating a gender-based hostile work environment under the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law.

The court explained that individual liability under those laws can reach a supervisor or employee who participates in discriminatory conduct, even without formal authority to hire or fire. Evidence that Filomio had supervisory responsibilities, controlled assignments in some circumstances, and gave directives that more junior officers had to follow created a factual issue about his supervisory role.

The court also found a factual issue about whether Filomio treated Beniquez less well because of her gender. It relied on the alleged series of unwanted communications and gestures, the physical contact, the repeated contact after Beniquez asked him to stop, and the workplace context. Whether Filomio’s conduct was friendly support or harassment was a question for a jury, not one the court could resolve on summary judgment.

The court rejected Beniquez’s aiding-and-abetting theories. A person cannot aid and abet their own conduct, and Beniquez’s claim that Filomio aided and abetted his own harassment was duplicative of her direct-liability claims. Her alternative theory that Filomio aided and abetted Green, Lieutenant Aysh-sha Burwell, or the UCS Office of Inspector General’s alleged failures to respond also lacked evidence creating a triable issue.

Disposition

The court’s conclusion states that UCS’s November 15, 2024 motion for summary judgment was granted and that Filomio’s motion for summary judgment was granted in part. The opinion identifies factual issues concerning Filomio’s direct liability under the state and city human-rights laws, while rejecting the aiding-and-abetting theories.