Court of Appeals Confirms New York City Human Rights Law Among Most Plaintiff-Friendly Employment Laws in the Country
Mihalik v. Credit Agricole Cheuvreux N. Am., Inc., No. 11-3361 (Apr. 26, 2013)
On Friday, April 26, 2013, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit confirmed that the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”) is among the most plaintiff-friendly employment discrimination laws in the United States. In vacating and remanding the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer-defendants, the Court laid out a detailed analysis of the plaintiff’s NYCHRL claims that will serve as the primary guide for attorneys and federal courts interpreting NYCHRL claims in the future.
The NYCHRL is the local law that protects employees against unlawful discrimination, harassment, and retaliation because of their “actual or perceived age, race, creed, color, national origin, gender, disability, marital status, partnership status, sexual orientation or alienage or citizenship status.” NYCHRL § 8-107 [1](a). Since its passage in 1962 until 2005, the NYCHRL was interpreted in much the same way as its federal and state counterparts. However, in 2005, the City Council, through the Local Civil Rights Restoration Act of 2005 (“Restoration Act”), made clear that the NYCHRL required an independent analysis from the federal and state laws in order to achieve its “uniquely broad and remedial purpose.” NYCHRL § 8-130. In Mihalik, the Court of Appeals explains what this independent analysis entails.
Mihalik’s Claims
The facts of Mihalik are as follows: in July 2007, the plaintiff, Renee Mihalik, was hired into the position of Vice President of Alternative Executive Services at Credit Agricole Cheuvreux (“Cheuvreux”), a brokerage firm located in midtown Manhattan. Upon starting her employment, Mihalik alleges that her supervisor, Chief Executive Officer Ian Peacock, gave her “special attention,” by, among other things, asking her about her dating preferences, commenting that she looked “sexy” or “should dress like that every day” when she wore certain clothing, and attempting to coordinate travel arrangements so he could be alone with Mihalik. In addition, Mihalik alleges that the Cheuvreux office was run like a “boys’ club,” as male employees regularly rated female employees based on appearance, discussed their trips to strip clubs, and watched (and shared) pornography in the office. In December 2007, Mihalik alleges, Peacock twice propositioned her for sex, suggesting the two could go to an apartment maintained by Cheuvreux in New York City. Mihalik refused Peacock’s advances, which Mihalik alleges led to Peacock treating her differently around the office. Peacock moved his seat away from Mihalik on the trading desk, excluded her from meetings, and berated her in front of co-workers. Mihalik first complained of Peacock’s behavior to David Zack, Director of Compliance, who told her, “you can’t prove it, he’s the CEO, and no one is going to back you.”
Cheuvreux, on the other hand, claimed that Mihalik was a poor performer who herself took part in the inappropriate behavior at the office. They presented evidence showing she had forwarded a sexually suggestive video that was forwarded to her by a co-worker to one of her clients. Furthermore, she referred to another male co-worker as a “stud,” and told another that he “looked so ripped.” With regard to her performance, Cheuvreux presented evidence that Mihalik’s sales numbers were significantly lower than her co-workers, that she had failed to carry out certain assignments given to her, and that Mihalik had taken 35 sick or vacation days in her nine months of employment with Cheuvreux.
Mihalik was called into a meeting with Peacock in April of 2008, after she failed to complete an assignment he had given her. Although he had initially intended to give Mihalik a performance warning, he terminated her after she alluded to Peacock’s sexual propositions: “What’s not working out [?] Me and you or me at the company?”
Legal Analysis
On these facts, the District Court in the Southern District of New York granted Cheuvreux’s motion for summary judgment, analyzing her NYCHRL claims under the same methodologies that are used to analyze federal and state law discrimination claims.
The Court of Appeals vacated the District Court’s decision, and remanded the case for trial. In its analysis, the Court emphasized the “uniquely broad and remedial purposes” of the NYCHRL, acknowledged that it was intended to be interpreted “broadly in favor of discrimination plaintiffs, to the extent such construction is reasonably possible,” and emphasized that federal and state laws serve only as “a floor below which the City’s Human Rights law cannot fall.” Furthermore, unlike the federal approach, which requires plaintiffs to meet rigid tests to establish prima facie cases of discrimination or hostile work environment, the NYCHRL requires an analysis of the “totality of the circumstances.” As such, the analysis cannot turn on, for example, how many incidents of harassment there are, or whether the harassing behavior was sufficiently “severe and pervasive.” Instead, under the NYCHRL, liability is determined by the “existence of differential treatment.” Therefore, the Court explained, Mihalik could establish liability by proving that she was “treated less well than other employees because of her gender.”
The Court did acknowledge, however, that the NYCHRL is not a “general civility code,” and that it is still possible for defendants to win motions for summary judgment if they can prove that the complained-of conduct was nothing more than “petty slights and trivial inconveniences.” However, in analyzing this defense, courts must consider the “totality of the circumstances,” and explains that, especially in the workplace, the “chilling effect” of certain conduct is particularly context-dependent. For example, the Court explains, even “a single comment that objectifies women…made in circumstances where that comment would, for example, signal views about the role of women in the workplace may be actionable.”
The Court of Appeals analyzed Mihalik’s retaliation claim under the same liberal construction of the NYCHRL. A plaintiff needs only to show that (1) she took action opposing her employer’s discriminatory action and that, (2) as a result, the employer engaged in conduct that was reasonably likely to deter a person from engaging in such action. Under the NYCHRL, an employee can “oppose” an employer’s discriminatory actions, and therefore trigger protection from retaliation, simply by communicating to her employer that she thought the action was wrong. Furthermore, with regard to the second element – whether an employer’s action would serve to deter a person from opposing discrimination further – the Court reiterated the importance of understanding the context under which the actions were taken.
Considering the totality of the circumstances, the Court concluded that summary judgment was inappropriate for Mihalik’s discrimination and retaliation claims, and remanded the case for trial.