Court in USA Upholds Female Plaintiffs’ Claims in Sex-Based Hostile Work Environment Case Involving Inmate Harassment

 

Overview:

In a recent legal development on January 12, 2024, the New York Supreme Court, in Santiago et al v. The City of New York, addressed allegations brought forth by female plaintiffs, former and current Department of Corrections employees. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss certain claims of sex-based hostile work environment under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.

Background:

The plaintiffs contend that they endured sexual harassment by inmates while working for the Department of Corrections. Male plaintiffs' claims had been dismissed earlier, but the court took a different stance when considering the claims made by female plaintiffs.

Key Points from the Decision:

The crux of the female plaintiffs' hostile work environment claim revolves around regular sexual harassment by inmates, with an assertion that the Department of Correction was aware of the situation but failed to address it. The court acknowledged that there was no direct precedent in New York State Courts for such allegations but drew parallels with federal courts interpreting Title VII.

The court noted that Title VII protects individuals facing discriminatory animus towards third persons with whom they associate, including situations where correctional departments fail to address widespread sexual harassment of female guards by inmates after being informed. Given the similarities between the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and Title VII, the court concluded that the NYSHRL permits a hostile work environment claim on these grounds.

Allegations by Female Plaintiffs:

The female plaintiffs allege that inmates were allowed to remain in broken cells, freely exposing themselves, attempting to touch female staff, and engaging in inappropriate behavior. Specific incidents include an attempted rape of Officer Verna Liburd, an attack on Officer Madel Castillo involving unwanted touching, and the hostile takeover and sexual harassment of Officers Ebony Cottman and Marchelle Franklin by a group of inmates.

The plaintiffs argue that the Department of Correction was aware of these incidents but failed to take preventive measures. Notably, the court considered these allegations sufficient to support a hostile work environment claim under the lenient notice pleading standard afforded to NYSHRL claims.

Legal Outcome:

The court's decision not only rejects the motion to dismiss the NYSHRL claims but also extends to the denial of the motion concerning plaintiffs' New York City Human Rights Law claims. This ruling emphasizes that federal and state laws set a baseline that the City's Human Rights Law cannot fall below, reinforcing the legal protection afforded to employees facing hostile work environments.

This case marks a significant step in addressing workplace harassment and holds potential implications for ensuring accountability in correctional facilities, advocating for the rights and safety of female correctional officers.