Williams-Barr v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community…

Background

Valerie Williams-Barr sued the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS), along with unidentified officers, alleging sexual harassment, sex discrimination, a hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The opinion addresses DOCCS’s motion for summary judgment on the Title VII claims. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the moving party shows that no genuine dispute of important fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment under the law.

Williams-Barr identified three main incidents: an alleged sexual-harassment incident involving Corrections Officer George Cooper in May 2015; an alleged incident in May 2017 in which an unidentified officer pressed his body against hers while she waited for a facility door to open; and an October 2017 incident in which security staff allegedly pushed her, causing her to fall. DOCCS conducted several investigations, which did not substantiate her allegations. Williams-Barr also filed an administrative charge alleging sexual harassment, a hostile work environment, and retaliation.

Hostile Work Environment Claim

The court held that the 2015 incident was outside Title VII’s 300-day filing period and was not sufficiently related to the 2017 incident to be considered as part of a continuing hostile-work-environment claim. The court also stated that Williams-Barr had not presented record evidence showing that the 2015 or 2017 incidents occurred because of her sex or that the incidents were sufficiently related, apart from her own assertions.

Nevertheless, the court concluded that a jury could find the May 2017 incident sufficiently humiliating or outrageous to support a hostile-work-environment claim by itself. Williams-Barr testified that an officer pressed against her body and pinned her to a door for two or three minutes. The court found a genuine factual dispute about the incident’s severity and declined to resolve witness credibility at summary judgment.

The court also found a factual dispute about whether DOCCS took prompt and reasonable action after receiving complaints. DOCCS’s own guidance stated that internal investigations generally should be completed within 30 days, subject to an extension process, while the investigations described in the opinion lasted nine months or longer. The court therefore could not decide as a matter of law that DOCCS’s investigations were sufficiently reasonable to avoid liability. The motion for summary judgment on the hostile-work-environment claim was denied.

Retaliation Claim

The court found that Williams-Barr engaged in protected activity by making internal complaints about alleged sexual harassment and that DOCCS knew about that activity. It nevertheless granted summary judgment to DOCCS on retaliation because Williams-Barr did not establish a materially adverse action or a causal connection between her complaints and the alleged adverse actions.

The court ruled that alleged surveillance, without a tangible negative consequence, was not materially adverse. It likewise ruled that the formal counseling memo for failing to report to an assigned shift was not materially adverse because Williams-Barr identified no tangible negative consequence from it.

The court recognized that physical assault can be a materially adverse action for retaliation purposes, but found that Williams-Barr had not shown that the officer who allegedly pushed her knew about her protected activity or that the officer’s conduct could be attributed to DOCCS. The court also found that the timing did not establish causation: the alleged Cooper incident occurred about 18 months before the October 2017 pushing incident, and even the investigation beginning in May 2017 preceded the pushing incident by more than four months.

Disposition

Judge Karas’s Opinion and Order granted in part and denied in part DOCCS’s motion for summary judgment. The motion was denied as to the hostile-work-environment claim and granted as to the retaliation claim. The court directed the clerk to terminate the motion and scheduled a status conference for May 3, 2023.