Harwood Feffer Prevails in Landmark Decision Denying Dismissal in Employment Discrimination Action

On February 23, 201l, United States District Court Judge Richard J. Holwell of the Southern District of New York ruled that Plaintiff Suzanne Langford’s suit alleging racial and gender based discrimination under Title VII, New York State’s Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law can proceed against the Defendants. Plaintiff is represented by Harwood Feffer attorneys Jeffrey Norton and Randolph McLaughlin.

Plaintiff’s claims arise out of her employment by Defendant Starrett City (“Starrett”) in an apprenticeship program run by Defendant International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 30 (“Local 30”). In her complaint, Plaintiff alleged that the apprenticeship program was operated in a discriminatory fashion, that the engineers refused to train her, gave her dangerous assignments, and ordered her to clean the men’s locker rooms that were littered with pictures of women in various stages of undress and sexually suggestive attire. When she complained to Starrett and Local 30 about her treatment by her supervisors and fellow employees, little or nothing was done to remedy the hostile work environment to which she was subjected. Additionally it is alleged that Local 30 attempted to have her removed prematurely from the apprenticeship program because she complained about her disparate treatment.

Both defendants filed motions to dismiss the Complaint. Judge Holwell, in a 39 page opinion, rejected virtually all of defendants’ arguments that the claims were time-barred, that the complaint failed to state a claim for hostile work environment, failure to train, and constructive discharge.

With respect to the state and city law claims, the Court rejected the Local 30’s argument that under New York law claims against a union must be pled and proven against each individual union member. The Court in a landmark ruling concluded that claims against a union asserting violations of statutorily created employment discrimination claims are not governed by the common law pleading standard.

A copy of the decision is available below.