Eckhart v. Fox News Network, LLC

Background

On September 9, 2021, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss. Ed Henry asked the court to reconsider three rulings: its refusal to dismiss Jennifer Eckhart’s retaliation claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law based on his filing of intimate photographs of her on the public docket; its refusal to dismiss her claim under New York Civil Rights Law § 52-b, which concerns the disclosure of intimate images; and its ruling that her hostile-work-environment claims under those human-rights laws were timely.

Reconsideration Standard

The court explained that reconsideration is available only when the moving party identifies an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a need to correct clear error or prevent serious unfairness. The standard is strict, and the decision whether to reconsider is left to the district court’s discretion.

Retaliation Claims

The court agreed with Henry that he could not be held liable for retaliation under the New York State Human Rights Law or the New York City Human Rights Law. The court stated that retaliation claims under those laws are limited to employment situations or, at least, situations involving an ongoing economic relationship. It found that no employment relationship or ongoing economic relationship existed between Henry and Eckhart when the photographs were filed. The court therefore dismissed Eckhart’s fifth and eighth causes of action against Henry only.

The court also corrected an error in its earlier description of the claims that survived. Eckhart’s third cause of action was a retaliation claim under Title VII against Fox News only; it was not asserted against Henry, and individuals are not liable under Title VII. The court clarified that this claim survives only as it concerns Eckhart’s termination against Fox News.

New York Civil Rights Law § 52-b Claim

The court declined to reconsider its decision allowing Eckhart’s claim against Henry under New York Civil Rights Law § 52-b to proceed. That statute contains an exception for the disclosure of an intimate image as part of lawful and common practices of legal proceedings, among other settings. At the motion-to-dismiss stage, however, the court found that Eckhart had plausibly alleged that filing the photographs publicly was not a lawful and common practice of a legal proceeding.

The court emphasized that whether the filing was actually lawful and common was a factual question for a later stage of the case, potentially including consideration by a jury. It also noted that it remained unclear whether Henry or his attorneys decided to file the photographs, but concluded that this uncertainty did not defeat Eckhart’s claim at the pleading stage. The court declined to consider affidavits submitted with the reconsideration motion.

Hostile-Work-Environment Claims

The court also denied reconsideration of its ruling that Eckhart’s hostile-work-environment claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law were timely. The earlier ruling had found that Henry allegedly engaged in conduct within the limitations period that contributed to a continuing course of harassment. Henry did not provide a sufficient legal or factual basis to change that ruling.

Disposition

The court granted Henry’s motion for reconsideration with respect to Eckhart’s retaliation claims, but denied it with respect to the New York Civil Rights Law § 52-b claim and the statute-of-limitations argument concerning the hostile-work-environment claims. The § 52-b and hostile-work-environment claims, along with Eckhart’s claims against Henry for sex trafficking and gender-motivated violence, proceed. The clerk was directed to terminate the reconsideration motion.