Bonterre v. City of New York

Background

Bettina Bonterre sued the City of New York, the New York City Department of Sanitation (DSNY), and DSNY employees Robert Weiss and Gaspar Moreno. She alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and New York common law claims for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Bonterre alleged that she experienced sexual harassment and assaults during her employment with DSNY. The complaint described a 1997 incident involving pornography at a workplace garage, alleged sexual assaults in 2009, and conduct at a garage where she worked after a February 2014 reassignment. That later conduct allegedly included sexually explicit comments, unwanted touching, an October 2016 incident in which Moreno sliced her pants with a razor, and a February 2017 incident in which Moreno deliberately pushed a broomstick into her clothed buttocks while Weiss was present. Bonterre also alleged that Weiss failed to take action despite her complaints.

The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c). This type of motion asks whether the written pleadings, assuming the opposing party’s well-supported factual allegations are true, show that the party cannot prove any facts that would justify relief.

Timeliness of the claims

Bonterre withdrew her negligent- and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims after conceding that they were time-barred. The court granted the motion regarding those claims. She also conceded that the 1997 pornography allegation was not sufficiently connected to her other claims to be actionable.

The court held that the 2009 sexual-assault allegations were not sufficiently related to the timely alleged incidents involving Moreno and Weiss to qualify under the continuing-violations rule. The court said the 2009 allegations could be considered as background, but were not themselves actionable. The court did not decide at this stage that the undated allegations concerning the later workplace environment were untimely, because the complaint did not clearly establish that the limitations period had expired for those allegations.

Hostile-work-environment claims

A hostile-work-environment claim requires allegations that the workplace was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive environment. The court explained that the New York State standard generally follows the Title VII standard, while the New York City Human Rights Law is interpreted more broadly for people alleging discrimination.

The court found that Bonterre plausibly stated hostile-work-environment claims. Although it described the issue as close, it concluded that the alleged broomstick incident—alone or together with the other timely allegations—could support such a claim. The alleged intentional and intrusive contact with an intimate body part could be sufficiently severe, and the surrounding allegations about daily sexually explicit comments supported an inference that the conduct was sexually motivated. The court also found that the allegations were sufficient under the New York State and New York City laws.

Retaliation claims

The court granted the motion on Bonterre’s retaliation claims under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. It found that her general references to complaints and protests did not identify enough information about when the complaints were made, to whom they were made, or what retaliatory conduct followed them.

The court accepted that Bonterre’s March 20, 2017 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint was protected activity. But the complaint did not identify specific retaliatory conduct after that filing: the razor incident occurred in October 2016, and the broomstick incident occurred on February 11, 2017. The court therefore found no plausible causal connection between the agency complaint and an actionable retaliatory act.

Individual liability

The court granted the motion on all Title VII claims against Weiss and Moreno individually because Title VII does not impose individual liability. The Title VII hostile-work-environment claim against the City and DSNY was not dismissed on this ground.

The court denied the motion on Bonterre’s aiding-and-abetting claims under the New York State and New York City human-rights laws. It held that the allegations that Moreno participated in the broomstick incident and that Weiss witnessed it and failed to take remedial action were sufficient at the pleading stage. The court followed the interpretation that an employee may state an aiding-and-abetting claim based on participation in discriminatory conduct, even when the employee is also alleged to be a primary actor. The court also said Bonterre stated a claim under an alternative theory that Weiss and Moreno aided one another.

The court granted the motion as to Moreno on the New York State hostile-work-environment claim and the New York City supervisory-liability claim because the complaint did not allege that Moreno had power to control or supervise Bonterre. The court denied the motion as to Moreno on the New York City hostile-work-environment claim because that law can impose liability on an employee, even if the employee is not an employer.

Disposition

Judge Edgardo Ramos stated that the motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted in part and denied in part. The motion was granted as to Count One against the individual defendants only; Counts Two, Four, Seven, Ten, and Eleven against all defendants; and Counts Three and Nine as to Moreno.

The motion was denied as to Count One against the City and DSNY; Counts Three and Nine against the City, DSNY, and Weiss; and Counts Five, Six, and Eight against all defendants. The opinion did not add a with-prejudice or without-prejudice qualifier to these rulings.