McRedmond v. Sutton Place Restaurant & Bar, Inc.

Citations: 95 A.D.3d 671; 945 N.Y.S.2d 35

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; May 22, 2012; New York; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Supreme Court of New York County denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment regarding plaintiff McRedmond’s hostile work environment claim and retaliatory termination claims under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws. McRedmond alleged that over two years, she faced vulgar sexual comments, weight-related remarks, and inappropriate touching by defendant Neil Hanafy, who also attempted to forcibly weigh her. She reported these incidents to both Hanafy and her supervisor, Selena Steddinger. Coworkers corroborated her claims, suggesting a pattern of behavior directed solely at female employees. The court found that a reasonable person could deem Hanafy’s conduct both subjectively and objectively abusive, violating the State HRL. 

Defendants’ argument that McRedmond did not demonstrate a negative impact on her work performance was rejected, as psychological harm is not a prerequisite for a hostile environment claim, which is assessed based on the totality of circumstances. Since the City HRL offers broader protections, the issues raised under the State HRL also pertain to the City HRL. The court determined that individual defendants could be held liable for Hanafy’s actions, given Hanafy's direct involvement and the potential complicity of owner Richard Kassis and general manager Alan Bradbury. Steddinger may also bear responsibility for failing to take action after McRedmond’s complaints.

Steddinger's receipt of complaints from McRedmond is sufficient to establish knowledge for Sutton Place, despite Steddinger not being upper management. McRedmond was directed to submit complaints to Steddinger instead of Kassis and was not obligated to escalate her concerns through multiple managers. As Hanafy, a supervisor and alleged perpetrator, had a nexus with the discriminatory conduct, Sutton Place can be held liable. Individual defendants may also face liability under the City Human Rights Law (HRL), which imposes strict liability for acts of managers and supervisors.

Both plaintiffs provided prima facie evidence of retaliation, as they were terminated shortly after reporting an incident involving the weighing of female employees. While defendants claimed the terminations were due to policy violations, plaintiffs countered that they had not breached any policies and were never disciplined, with a coworker corroborating their claims. Defendants’ submission of disciplinary forms, which plaintiffs had never seen, raises questions about their authenticity, creating a factual dispute regarding the legitimacy of defendants' non-discriminatory reasons for termination.

Plaintiffs' retaliation claims under both the State and City HRL can proceed, as the City HRL only requires that one reason presented by the defendant is false or misleading. Regarding McRedmond’s false imprisonment claim, there are factual issues concerning Hanafy's intent to confine her and whether she consented to the confinement. Defendants argue she was free to leave, but a jury could reasonably conclude she was confined when Hanafy forcibly commanded her to get on the scale. In terms of battery claims, there is also a factual dispute over whether Hanafy touched plaintiffs without consent in an offensive manner, as intent to harm is not a necessary element of battery. The court finds defendants' other arguments unpersuasive.