Filed: Dec. 09, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 09, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER LEONARD D. WEXLER , District Judge . Plaintiff Bradford Kimble ("Kimble" or "Plaintiff") brings this action alleging race discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000(e), et seq., 42 U.S.C. 1981, and New York State Human Rights Executive Law 296 ("NYSHRL"). Plaintiff also claims he suffered a hostile work environment and was constructively discharged because of Defendants' discrimination. Defendants move for su
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER LEONARD D. WEXLER , District Judge . Plaintiff Bradford Kimble ("Kimble" or "Plaintiff") brings this action alleging race discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000(e), et seq., 42 U.S.C. 1981, and New York State Human Rights Executive Law 296 ("NYSHRL"). Plaintiff also claims he suffered a hostile work environment and was constructively discharged because of Defendants' discrimination. Defendants move for sum..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
LEONARD D. WEXLER, District Judge.
Plaintiff Bradford Kimble ("Kimble" or "Plaintiff") brings this action alleging race discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e), et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and New York State Human Rights Executive Law § 296 ("NYSHRL"). Plaintiff also claims he suffered a hostile work environment and was constructively discharged because of Defendants' discrimination. Defendants move for summary judgment.
The gravamen of Plaintiff's claims are that while working for Defendants, various racial slurs were used in the workplace, such as "monkey" and "jungle monkey," and that the term "nigga" was used in his presence, as were other comments, such as, "you're so black that even though its Ash Wednesday, I can't see the ashes on your head." Plaintiff claims that even when complaints were made, Defendants disregarded the comments or failed to adequately address them. Plaintiff asserts that after he complained, and after his lawyer sent a letter complaining of the allegedly discriminatory conduct, Defendants retaliated against him by transferring him to another department, which isolated him and relegated him to accounts that were "almost impossible to collect," decreasing his compensation. He claims he suffered a hostile work environment, which was so severe that he suffered severe anxiety and panic attacks, ultimately forcing him to resign.
Defendants move for summary judgment, claiming that many of Plaintiff's claims are time-barred and even if not, fail to state claims. The Court finds that genuine issues of material fact exist in regard to whether, inter alia, the alleged racial comments were pursuant to an ongoing policy of discrimination to support Plaintiff's theory that all of his claims are timely based on the "continuing violation exception." Fitzgerald v. Henderson, 251 F.3d 345, 359 (2d Cir. 2001).1 Other factual disputes exist as to whether Plaintiff suffered adverse employment actions to support his discrimination and retaliation claims, and whether the allegedly discriminatory acts were so severe or pervasive to constitute a hostile work environment, or so intolerable that a reasonable person would be forced to resign. Such issues of fact preclude the entry of summary judgment at this time. Defendants may renew their arguments at the time of trial.2
Accordingly, Defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied. Counsel are reminded that jury selection is scheduled for December 14, 2015 at 9:30am.
SO ORDERED.
