Torres v. Central Avenue Nissan, Inc.

Background

Krista Torres worked as a salesperson at Central Avenue Nissan, Inc. for about five and a half months in 2016. She alleged that she has scoliosis and a metal rod prosthesis in her back, which limited her ability to lift objects, bend, sit, and stand for long periods. She testified that she told dealership management about these limitations and asked for help with tasks such as changing license plates, moving a car seat, driving long distances, and taking breaks from standing.

Torres also alleged that James Rourke, the dealership’s general manager and part-owner, sexually harassed her. Her testimony described a demand that she wear a bathing suit at a sales event, repeated requests for dates, sexual comments, unwanted touching, and an incident in which he rubbed his groin against her leg. Torres did not report the alleged harassment through the dealership’s written reporting procedures or otherwise while she worked there.

Torres’s employment ended after a dispute with Ali Mahidashti. The opinion states that the dispute did not concern discrimination or sexual harassment and that Torres was later offered her job back but declined. She filed claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The defendants moved for summary judgment, which asks the court to rule without a trial when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about facts that could affect the result.

Sexual-Harassment Claims

The court held that Torres presented enough evidence for a reasonable jury to find that Rourke’s conduct created a hostile work environment under both Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law. The court explained that the alleged groin-to-leg contact, considered by itself, could meet the required level of seriousness, and that the other alleged conduct—including the bathing-suit demand, sexual comments, repeated invitations for dates, hovering, and touching—further supported the claim.

Because Rourke was Torres’s supervisor, the court treated his alleged conduct as attributable to Central Avenue for purposes of the employer’s responsibility. Central Avenue argued that it had a defense because Torres did not use its harassment-reporting policy. The court rejected summary judgment on that defense because a jury could find that Torres reasonably feared retaliation: Rourke was a general manager and part-owner, owners historically conducted investigations, and Rourke could have been involved in deciding whether a complaint was frivolous. The court therefore denied summary judgment on the hostile-work-environment claims.

New York Individual-Liability Claim

Torres also claimed that Rourke individually aided and encouraged discrimination in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law. The court noted that the statute can impose individual liability on a person who participates in the discriminatory conduct. Because Rourke did not specifically address this claim in the summary-judgment briefing, the court found that he had not met his initial burden of showing that no genuine factual dispute existed. The court denied summary judgment on this claim.

ADA Claims

The court treated Torres’s ADA allegations as asserting two claims: discriminatory termination and failure to provide reasonable accommodation. The court granted summary judgment on the discriminatory-termination claim. Torres did not address that claim in her opposition, so the court treated it as abandoned. The court also stated that, even if it were not abandoned, the claim failed because the record did not show that her termination or decision not to return was caused by her disability. The dispute leading to her termination did not concern disability discrimination, and she had been offered her job back.

The court denied summary judgment on the failure-to-accommodate claim. Torres testified that she informed management about her scoliosis and physical limitations and repeatedly reminded management when she needed help. She identified requested accommodations such as assistance with license plates and breaks to sit after standing for long periods. According to her testimony, management refused or rejected those requests by saying the tasks were part of her job. The court found that this evidence created a factual dispute about whether she requested accommodations and whether Central Avenue refused them.

Retaliation Claims

Torres asserted retaliation claims under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law. The defendants argued that she had not engaged in protected activity and had not suffered an adverse employment action. Torres did not address these claims in her opposition. The court therefore treated them as abandoned and granted summary judgment on both retaliation claims.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Specifically, it granted summary judgment on Torres’s ADA discriminatory-termination claim and her Title VII and New York State Human Rights Law retaliation claims. It otherwise denied summary judgment, leaving the hostile-work-environment claims, the NYSHRL aiding-and-abetting claim against Rourke, and the ADA failure-to-accommodate claim for further proceedings. The court denied the defendants’ requests for oral argument as moot, directed correction of the caption to replace “James O’Rourke” with “James Rourke,” and directed the Clerk to terminate the motion.