Although many people assume the victim is female when they hear reports of sexual harassment in the workplace, men can be victims of sexual harassment as well. Regardless of whether a victim of sexual harassment is a man or a woman, however, it is essential for any victim of sexual harassment that wishes to pursue claims against his or her employer to take action in a timely manner. In some cases, though, if the harassment is ongoing, it may be deemed a continuing violation and may fall within the statute of limitations regardless of when the initial harm occurred. This was demonstrated in a recent case decided by a New York District Court, in which the court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims on the grounds that they were untimely. If you are a victim of sexual harassment in the workplace, it is prudent to consult a capable New York sexual harassment attorney to assess what damages you may be owed.
Facts Regarding the Alleged Harassment
It is alleged that in April 2012, the plaintiff began working as a materials coordinator for the defendant employer. In May 2014, the defendant supervisor began making sexual advances and comments to the plaintiff, and touching him inappropriately. The plaintiff did not respond to the defendant supervisor’s advances but did not report them either, for fear of retaliation. The defendants subsequently engaged in several acts that created a hostile work environment.
Reportedly, the plaintiff requested numerous meetings with Human Resources, but only one meeting occurred, and no corrective action was taken thereafter. The plaintiff was subsequently terminated after which he filed a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which granted the plaintiff a right to sue letter. He then filed a lawsuit against the defendants, alleging numerous counts of sexual harassment, including a hostile work environment claim. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss arguing, inter alia, that the plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim was barred by the applicable statute of limitations.