Terminated female employee alleges sexual harassment by male supervisors and coworkers
A recent case before the New York Appellate Division arose from a lawsuit seeking damages for employment discrimination based on sex in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law.
From November 2012 to July 2017, the plaintiff in this case worked as a sports account executive for WFAN/Yankees Radio Network. CBS Radio East, LLC – which was a wholly-owned, indirect subsidiary of CBS Radio, Inc. – directly employed the plaintiff. CBS Radio, Inc. was in turn a wholly-owned, indirect subsidiary of CBS Corporation.
In July 2018, the plaintiff sued CBS Radio, Inc. and CBS Radio East, LLC, among others to recover damages for the alleged sex-based discrimination. She later amended her complaint to add CBS Corporation as a defendant.
The plaintiff claimed that the following occurred during her employment: certain male supervisors and coworkers sexually harassed her, she received unfavorable treatment as compared with her male counterparts, and she was terminated soon after her involvement in an altercation at an employer-sponsored event in July 2017.
Read more: Ex-employee sues Staples over alleged sexual harassment, gender discrimination
CBS Corporation filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint against it. The company cited section 3211(a)(7) of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules.
In February 2020, the Supreme Court at Kings County granted CBS Corporation’s motion. This prompted the plaintiff to appeal.
In the case of Lauren Lockwood v CBS Corporation, the New York Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court. The court properly granted CBS Corporation’s motion under section 3211(a)(7), said the appellate division.
The appellate division rejected the plaintiff’s argument that it should subject CBS Corporation to liability based on the single employer doctrine.
This legal doctrine imposes liability if two nominally separate entities are a part of a single integrated enterprise, the appellate division explained. According to the appellate division, the doctrine has four criteria to decide whether two or more companies are interrelated enough, such that they constitute a single entity:
To know whether there is a centralized control of labor, the appellate division has to answer the question of which entity made the final decision regarding employment matters relating to the person alleging discrimination.
In this case, the amended complaint and the evidence submitted by the plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege or demonstrate facts that would support a finding of a single employer relationship between CBS Corporation and the CBS Radio defendants, the appellate division ruled.
The evidence in this case merely consisted of unsupported legal conclusions that CBS Corporation and the CBS Radio defendants had a centralized control of labor relations, the appellate division held. This evidence did not allege or show, in a manner that was not conclusory, the ways in which CBS Corporation was involved in the plaintiff’s employment with the CBS Radio defendants, the appellate division added.
