Doe v. Bloomberg, L.P.
2019 NY Slip Op 6728 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the New York City Human Rights Law, an individual owner or officer of a corporate employer may be held strictly liable as an 'employer' for the discriminatory acts of a subordinate supervisor only if the plaintiff alleges that the individual personally encouraged, condoned, or approved of the specific discriminatory conduct at issue.
Facts:
- In September 2012, Margaret Doe began working as a temporary employee at Bloomberg L.P., with Nicholas Ferris as her direct supervisor.
- A few weeks into her employment, Ferris allegedly began a pattern of unwanted advances, inappropriate touching, and sending offensive messages to Doe.
- Doe alleges that Ferris raped her on two occasions in February and March 2013.
- Doe did not report Ferris's conduct to Bloomberg L.P.'s Human Resources Department, believing it would be ignored, but she did request a desk change away from him without stating the reason.
- Doe alleged that Michael Bloomberg, as founder and majority owner, fostered a hostile work environment and a culture of discrimination at the company through his own past conduct and comments.
- By October 2015, Doe's health had deteriorated, and she was placed on indefinite medical leave for major depressive disorder and anxiety.
- Bloomberg L.P. terminated Nicholas Ferris in December 2015.
Procedural Posture:
- Margaret Doe commenced an action in the Supreme Court, Bronx County (trial court) against Bloomberg L.P., Michael Bloomberg, and Nicholas Ferris.
- Defendant Michael Bloomberg filed a motion to dismiss the causes of action against him.
- The trial court initially granted Bloomberg's motion and dismissed the claims against him.
- Plaintiff Doe filed a motion for reargument.
- Upon reargument, the trial court reversed its earlier decision and denied Bloomberg's motion to dismiss the claims brought under the New York City Human Rights Law.
- Defendant-Appellant Michael Bloomberg appealed the order denying his motion to dismiss to the Appellate Division, First Department.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the New York City Human Rights Law (City HRL) impose strict liability on an individual owner of a corporate employer for the discriminatory acts of a manager, where the owner did not personally encourage, condone, or approve of that specific misconduct?
Opinions:
Majority - Kern, J.
No. An individual owner or officer of a corporate employer is not strictly liable as an 'employer' under the City HRL unless the plaintiff sufficiently alleges that the individual encouraged, condoned, or approved the specific discriminatory conduct giving rise to the claim. The court reasoned that while the City HRL imposes strict liability on an 'employer' for a supervisor's misconduct, the statute does not define 'employer' in a way that automatically includes owners for acts they were not involved in. To hold an owner liable simply based on their status would contravene fundamental principles of corporate law, which shields owners from personal liability unless they personally participate in a tort. The plaintiff's allegations that Michael Bloomberg created a discriminatory 'culture' are insufficient because they fail to connect him to the specific discriminatory acts committed by Ferris against Doe. There were no allegations that Bloomberg knew or should have known about Ferris's conduct.
Dissenting - Manzanet-Daniels, J.
Yes. The City HRL should be construed liberally to impose strict liability on an individual owner like Michael Bloomberg for the discriminatory acts of a manager. The dissent argues that the majority conflates two separate legal questions: 1) who qualifies as an 'employer,' and 2) the standard for liability. Under established precedent (Patrowich), an 'employer' is anyone with an ownership interest or the power to do more than carry out others' personnel decisions, a definition Bloomberg clearly meets. Once defined as an 'employer,' the City HRL's plain language imposes strict liability for a supervisor's actions without requiring the employer to have 'encouraged, condoned, or approved' the conduct. By adding this requirement, the majority improperly imports the stricter standard from the State Human Rights Law, undermining the City HRL's uniquely broad and remedial purpose.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and narrows the scope of individual liability for owners and high-level executives under the expansive New York City Human Rights Law. By requiring a plaintiff to plead a direct nexus between the individual owner and the specific discriminatory act—through encouragement, condonation, or approval—the court created a higher barrier to holding corporate leaders personally responsible for their subordinates' misconduct. This ruling aligns individual liability under the City HRL more closely with traditional tort and corporate law principles that limit personal liability, pushing back against a pure status-based theory of liability. The decision sets a key precedent that protects executives from liability for acts they were unaware of, while potentially making it more difficult for plaintiffs to hold those at the very top accountable for workplace discrimination.
