Employee Stated Claims For Hostile Work Environment And Retaliation
Eleanora M. Patane began working in 1998 as an executive secretary in Fordham University's Classics Department. One of her supervisors was John Richard Clark, a professor in the Classics Department who was also, at various times during Patane's tenure, the Department's Chair.
In 2006 Patane brought suit against Fordham and Clark, for discriminatory action, creating a hostile work environment, and retaliatory acts, in violation of Title VII, and New York City Human Rights Law. In her suit, Patane alleged the following facts:
From the beginning, Clark engaged in inappropriate sexually-charged conduct in their workplace.
For instance, in 1998, Clark engaged in the gender-based harassment of a female classics professor, Dr. Sarah Peirce. Then, starting in 1999-2000, Clark spent one to two hours every day viewing “hard core pornographic” videotapes on a TV-VCR in his office. Patane was aware of Clark's habit because the flickering from his TV screen was visible through the glass partition of his office and because she once saw numerous pornographic videotapes scattered on the floor of his office when she knocked on his door to announce a visitor.
Some of Clark's behavior was specifically directed at Patane. Once, she discovered “hard core pornographic websites” on her computer. Clark used her computer to view these sites during his weekend trips to the office. After discovering the sites, she obtained a password to protect her computer and had all of the offensive material deleted. Moreover, Clark regularly had videotapes “concerning masochism and sadism” shipped to the office, which, as his secretary, she was responsible for opening and delivering to his mailbox.
Sometime before 2001, Patane showed one of the videotapes delivered to Clark's office to Georgina Arendacs, the Director of the Equity and Equal Opportunity (“EEO”) Department at Fordham's Bronx campus, who was charged with handling discrimination claims. Arendacs took no remedial action beyond reporting Patane's complaint to David Stuhr, the Associate Vice-President of Academic Affairs. Patane continued to report Clark's behavior to Arendacs and Stuhr throughout 2004-including showing them the collection of thirty-six pornographic videotapes that Clark kept in his office.
By 2001, Clark was “clearly aware” that she had reported his behavior and began to retaliate against her. He “removed virtually all of her secretarial functions, kept her entirely out of the departmental information ‘loop,’ refused to speak to her, and communicated with her only by e-mail.” Harry B. Evans, another professor in the Classics Department and Clark's friend, advised Clark not to “give Patane any more work” in order to “make her leave.”
In the fall of 2004, Evans became the Chair of the Classics Department and he continued Clark's campaign of retaliation. Evans sought to take disciplinary action against Patane on the pretext that she had inaccurately prepared a time sheet; he constantly monitored her whereabouts and picked up her telephone; and he issued a negative performance evaluation, which was materially false.
Patane subsequently filed this suit. The United States District Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss all claims. On appeal, the 2nd Circuit reversed with respect to the hostile environment and retaliation claims and affirmed as to the disparate treatment claim, holding that: (1) Patane's disparate treatment claim failed because she didn't plead that she was subjected to any gender-based adverse employment action; (2) Patane pled sufficient facts to state a claim for hostile environment sexual harassment; and (3) Patane pled sufficient facts to state a claim for retaliation.
Patane v. Clark
The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals’ jurisdiction includes New York, Vermont and Connecticut.