First published: Nov 2024
Nightmare On Astor Place
TAKEAWAY Courts tend to take discrimination claims very seriously. Boards and managing agents should diligently and repeatedly instruct all staff members to not conduct themselves in a manner that may reasonably be deemed to constitute harassment (sexual or otherwise), and the awareness of any inappropriate conduct by any staff member must be immediately reported to a supervisor, the managing agent, or the board. Further, all persons in a supervisory position, after being on notice of inappropriate conduct by a staff member, must immediately notify their supervisors and must take necessary and appropriate actions to cause the discountenance of such inappropriate conduct.
CHARLIER VS. 21 ASTOR PLACE CONDOMINIUM, ET. AL.
WHAT HAPPENED Annabelle Charlier moved into 21 Astor Place in April 2021. Within the month of her arrival, she claims, the building’s doorman began targeting her with sexually charged remarks. The situation escalated when the doorman began making unannounced visits to Charlier's apartment, sometimes forcing his way in and remaining for hours.
The most serious incident occurred on June 29, 2021, when he allegedly pushed his way into her apartment and stayed for three to four hours. During this time, he showed her sexually provocative videos, made her spin around so he could "ogle" her, used vulgar language about women and her body, and threatened her by referencing his past as a gang member, stating "snitches always end up in ditches."
As a consequence of these actions, Charlier became effectively imprisoned in her apartment for seven weeks, requiring her husband to escort her whenever she needed to enter or leave the building. The building supervisor allegedly witnessed some of this harassment but failed to intervene.
This lack of response became a key element in the lawsuit that Charlier finally filed. In it she sued the condominium, the management company, the board, the board president, and the doorman. Her complaint included 12 claims under various laws including the Fair Housing Act, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law, citing sex-based discrimination, retaliation, aiding and abetting, interference, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence.
IN COURT The provisions of each of those laws was reviewed separately, with the general conclusion that an employer could be vicariously liable for the improper conduct of one or more of its employees if that conduct is within the scope of employment, or if the employer is “negligent or reckless,” or if the employer “knew or should have known about the improper conduct and failed to stop it.”
Further, the court said that if the employee who has knowledge of the improper conduct was a supervisor of the bad actor, then that knowledge of the supervisor will be imputed to the employer. Additionally, the court said that an employer entity may be held vicariously liable, but that individuals who are principals, partners, or members of those entities will not be liable except for their own discriminatory conduct, or aiding or abetting such conduct, or retaliation against protected conduct.
Based on this, the court found that the condominium association and the managing agent were properly named as employers of the building staff, but that the condo’s board of managers and the board president were not deemed to be employers and were dismissed from the action (one questions whether the court understood that the condominium is not a formal entity, but rather is an association that operates through its board).
COUNSEL for the condo, condo board & president BARRY G. MARGOLIS Abrams Garfinkel Margolis Bergson, LLP; for the doorman TRACEY SCOTT BERNSTEIN Himmel & Bernstein; for Annabelle Charlier JOHNMACK COHEN; Justice Laura Taylor Swain
