Plaintiffs brought an action in federal district court alleging that their employer, the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision [DOCCS], "negligently created a racially hostile work environment in violation of Title VII" by failing to adequately investigate their allegations of misconduct by certain coworkers. The federal district court had granting summary judgment in favor of DOCCS after finding Plaintiffs failed to show:
1. Liability for the alleged misconduct could be imputed to the DOCCS;
2. The alleged misconduct was severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of their employment; and
(3) The alleged misconduct was based on their race.
Plaintiffs appealed each of the district court's ruling to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Citing Rasmy v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 952 F.3d 379, the Circuit Court said “An employer violates Title VII when the ‘workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment so long as there is a basis for imputing the conduct that created the hostile environment to the employer." In addition, the Court noted that the plaintiff must demonstrate that the conduct occurred because of the plaintiff's protected status, citing Agosto v. N.Y.C. Department of Educ., 982 F.3d 86, and Desardouin v. City of Rochester, 708 F.3d 102.
Opining that "It is insufficient for a plaintiff to allege that he or she is a member of a protected class, experienced a hostile workplace, and therefore that the hostility must have been because of his or her protected class", the Circuit Court of Appeals said it agreed the district court that "there is no evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that these acts of harassment were directed at [Plaintiffs] because of their race".
In the words of the Circuit Court, "the only evidence referencing any reason for the alleged abuse, including the [Plaintiffs’] own testimony, tended to indicate that [Plaintiffs] were harassed because they were perceived to be disloyal* and the evidence offered nothing to suggest that the treatment of Plaintiffs was based on their race.**
Nor, said the Court, could a reasonable jury infer that the supervisors discriminated against Plaintiffs because of their race. Although Plaintiffs argued that they were assigned to “less desirable” posts more often than white officers, the record indicates that (1) “[t]here are no inferior posts,” (2) other officers were assigned to the posts that were subjectively considered "less desirable" at least as much as [Plaintiffs] and (3) [Plaintiffs] "were assigned to posts that were consistent with their job responsibilities" and Plaintiffs did not submit any evidence "to support the assertion that the posts they requested were assigned to white officers."
Concluding that the federal district court correctly granted summary judgment to DOCCS on the ground that no reasonable jury could find that Plaintiffs were harassed because of their race, the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court.
* One Plaintiff said "that other officers believed Plaintiff was a 'rat' because Plaintiff had testified on behalf of an inmate in a disciplinary hearing" while the second Plaintiff said "other officers regarded him [quoting derogatory language] because he had testified against a fellow corrections officer at another institution where he had worked".
**The Court said that the evidence is consistent with the theory that [Plaintiffs] experienced “workplace bullying completely detached from any discriminatory motive.”
Click HERE to access the Circuit Court's decision posted on the Internet.