By Kate Acheson
Plaintiff Tracy Joyner, a New York City Corrections Officer, filed suit against the City of New York for discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII after her supervisor made repeated sexual advances towards her. In Joyner v. City of New York, the District Court dismissed all federal claims, finding that, although Ms. Joyner was sexually harassed, the City is not liable because Ms. Joyner waited over a year before reporting the harassment.
Ms. Joyner complained of a series of uncomfortable encounters with her supervisor, Michael Johnson, from December 2008 through late 2009. On numerous occasions, Johnson attempted to kiss her, commented on her body or attire, blocked her from exiting spaces, or physically interacted with her in overly familiar ways. Most egregiously, on December 28, 2009, Johnson allegedly said to the plaintiff, “Why don’t you let me make love to you four, five times so I can get it out of my system. Stop acting like you don’t like me.”
The Court determined this conduct could be considered “sufficiently pervasive” to create a hostile work environment. However, because Ms. Joyner failed to utilize the City’s complaint procedure, until more than a year after the alleged harassment began, the Court found the City was not liable for the Harassment.
An affirmative defense to a Title VII claim, as set out in Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, relieves the employer of liability. An employer is not liable if it can show “(a) that [it] exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior, and (b) that the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise.”
It is undisputed that the Department of Correction maintained a policy against sexual harassment and offered an accessible reporting procedure. Thus, the employer, according to the court, had shown reasonable care in preventing and correcting harassing behavior. Also, because the harassment Ms. Joyner faced ceased once reported, but was not reported for over one year, the City showed that Ms. Joyner’s failure to report was unreasonable.
Joyner attempted to rebut the allegation that her failure to report was “unreasonable” by claiming failed to make a report earlier due to a fear of retaliation. However, she has shown no rational basis for that fear. The court explained:
Given the plaintiff’s failure to show a “credible” threat of retaliation, her sudden decision to report the harassment after failing to do so for more than a year, coupled with her acknowledgment that the offensive conduct ceased once she reported it, compels the conclusion that she acted “unreasonably” in failing to take advantage of the Department of Correction’s grievance procedures earlier.
Because Ms. Joyner “unreasonably” failed to take advantage of a corrective procedure provided by the City for over a year, the Court relieved the City of Liability and dismissed Joyner’s Title VII claim.
