A woman in New York City brought a claim of gender discrimination alleging her supervisor insulted and excluded her, concealed information from her, and denied her requests for a raise. Were these decisions based on gender bias? The court found he made numerous statements that reflect gender bias including, “You women are such sensitive flowers”; he “only supports humble and meek women”; the woman was “in your face”; he would “probably” treat male employees differently, including by grooming them for advancement; and his perception of the woman as “a smart confident accomplished woman with an opinion might be the reason for [his] harsh treatment of her.”
The court held that her supervisor’s alleged remarks rose above the level of nonactionable petty slights or inconveniences, and established differential treatment.
She also won on retaliation. The court found that after she complained, her supervisor took away her responsibility for hiring support staff and her ability to use such staff as a resource; excluded her from projects; ignored and hid information from her; publicly undermined her; and took away her planning responsibilities with respect to two annual conferences. He also threatened her that he would “make the situation worse” if she continued to complain.
The case is O’Rourke v National Foreign Trade Council, Inc., decided by the New York Appellate Division, First Department, on October 17, 2019
What this means to employers: This case applies only to employers in the City of New York. However, other jurisdictions may be watching and may take a similar approach. That means all employers should provide training not only on preventing sexual harassment, but also eliminating gender bias.