In New York City, workers benefit from some of the strongest anti-discrimination laws in the country. Here, the law says that impermissible discrimination may play “no role” in the treatment of a worker. Even if discrimination was just a lesser motivating factor, that proof is enough to give a worker a case in New York City. If you have questions about gender discrimination or a hostile work environment you encountered at your job, talk to a knowledgeable New York City gender discrimination lawyer right away.
A recent case playing out here in New York County is an example of allegations of legitimate and illegitimate motives and how that proof was not enough for a court to throw out a woman’s gender discrimination case.
The employee, I.K., was a woman who worked for a health insurance company. In 2018, the woman got a new supervisor. That man, M.P., allegedly made numerous inappropriate sexual comments. The supervisor made comments about her appearance, like telling her what clothes she should wear and telling other female employees “that they should wear short skirts like [I.K.],” according to the complaint. The supervisor also allegedly advised the woman that she should not associate with a particular female colleague because she was beautiful and the other woman was ugly.
The woman complained about the supervisor’s harassment, and the employer eventually transferred her. Soon after that, the woman’s new supervisor recommended her termination, which the employer carried out just a few months later.
I.K. sued for gender discrimination, and the employer asked the trial court to award it a summary judgment, which would have the effect of tossing out I.K.’s case without even requiring a trial.
When an employer seeks a summary judgment in a worker’s employment discrimination lawsuit, the law requires the judge to reject the request unless there is no possible factual scenario that could support the worker’s claims.
The court in I.K.’s case denied the employer’s request, concluding that the woman had a viable claim. In reaching its outcome, the court highlighted several legal concepts that required allowing the woman to proceed. The first was that I.K. had what the law calls a legitimate “prima facie” case of discrimination. A prima facie case has four essential factors. These include: membership in a protected class, qualification for the job held (or sought), an adverse employment action, and the presence of an “inference of discrimination.”
In many cases, a worker’s success or failure in demonstrating the existence of the “prima facie” elements hinges on the last one, the inference of discrimination. For example, in I.K.’s lawsuit, her status as a woman placed in a gender-based protected class, her tenure with the employer (nearly 20 years) demonstrated her qualifications, and her firing was undeniably adverse.
This left the final element. The employer argued that there could be no inference of discrimination because it had a legitimate business reason for firing the woman: three years of negative performance reviews. The court, however, pointed out that the employer’s stated reason was potentially tainted. Of the three poor reviews, the woman’s alleged harasser was the author of at least one of them. Additionally, the employer’s arguments failed “to resolve a central issue of fact: whether [I.K.] received poor work performance evaluations from prior supervisors, including [the alleged harasser], because of her complaints about sexual harassment.”
Impermissible Motives Can Play 'No Role'
The court also reminded readers that the “standard for determining liability for discrimination-based claims under the New York City Human Rights Law is to ensure that discrimination plays no role in the disparate treatment of similarly situated individuals in the workplace.” In other words, even if the employer could prove that some of the woman’s poor reviews were the result of legitimately deficient performances, that is not enough. If the woman proved that her termination was the result of a mixture of poor performance and gender discrimination, that would be enough to make her case.
As this case illustrates, achieving a successful result in a gender discrimination lawsuit requires several key steps. The diligent New York City gender discrimination attorneys at Phillips & Associates PLLC have the experience you need to assist you effectively in navigating each of these steps, as well as providing easy-to-understand and reliable advice about your rights and options. To learn more, please get in touch with us online or call (866) 229-9441 to schedule a free and confidential consultation today.