A 22-year-old recent college graduate, who had not previously held a professional job, claims she was raped by her supervisor, Nicholas Ferris, at Bloomberg L.P., a corporation owned and managed by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. New York courts are referring to the employee as “Margaret Doe” in order to protect her identity due to the social stigma associated with litigating such claims.
“Michael Bloomberg notoriously responded “that he would not call the rape allegation genuine unless there was an ‘unimpeachable third party witness,'” alleged Niall Macgiollabhui, Margaret’s attorney.
Appellate Court Dismisses Margaret’s Claim against Michael Bloomberg
According to the New York Appellate Court, in a split 3-2 decision, the former Mayor is not personally responsible for the rape and sexual harassment of Margaret because Margaret did not claim that Bloomberg himself condoned or approved of the sexual harassment.
Live-Streamed Oral Argument on Thursday, January 7, 2020 at 12pm.
Margaret disagrees with the Appellate court and is appealing her case to the New York State Court of Appeals, New York State’s highest court. Oral argument will be live streamed on the courts website with Margaret’s attorney Niall Macgiollabhui making the argument before the court.
Bloomberg is responsible for the toxic work environment of his company
Margaret worked for Bloomberg L.P. from September 2012 until October 2015. During that time, Michael Bloomberg was allegedly directly involved in addressing gender discrimination issues at the company. Margaret claims that Michael Bloomberg fostered a culture of discrimination and sexual harassment at the company. This toxic environment, within the company, directly led to her being raped and sexually harassed by her supervisor, Nicholas Ferris.
Overall, Margaret claims that her rape was the product of a company with a top-down culture that is blatantly hostile towards women and that the company was following the example and leadership of Michael Bloomberg himself. The company became a reckless playground for male supervisors to target young, naive female employees aspiring to have a career at the company, for sex.
New York City Human Rights Law amendments
Margaret’s attorney, Macgiollabhui, claims that the New York City Council amended the New York City Human Rights law in 2005 in order to distinguish the New York City law from the New York State and Federal laws on sexual harassment.
Macgiollabhui asserts that the City Council found that the NYC Human Rights law was being interpreted too narrowly and that far too many claims were being dismissed by the courts and that those people who should be held accountable for sexual harassment were being let off the hook.
Incredibly, claims Macgiollabhui, the courts have failed to properly interpret the changes made to the New York City Human Rights laws.
“The remedial purposes of the City HRL, as stressed repeatedly by the City Council to courts engaged in interpreting its provisions, are uniquely broad,” wrote Macgiollabhui.
Can managers escape liability for sexual harassment?
Margaret’s attorney, Macgiollabhui claims that the days where a manager can escape liability for the sexual harassment happening at their company are over. Macgiollabhui alleges that while under New York State law, an employee must show that the manager somehow knew about the actual sexual harassment; under New York City’s law, Margaret does not need to prove that Bloomberg knew about the harassment, only that the harassment happened and that Bloomberg was the manager of the company.
“ His [Bloomberg] lack of personal involvement in the alleged harassment or of any direct connection to the plaintiff [Margaret] is immaterial,” wrote Macgiollabhui.
How can every manager in a company be held responsible for one person’s harassment?
Bloomberg’s attorney, Elise M. Bloom, claims that Margaret has no claim against Bloomberg under the NYC Human Rights law because such law does not capture owners or executives of the company that did not participate in, encourage, condone or approve of the sexual harassment.
“The … statute as a whole expressly limits liability to individuals with …involvement, and any broader interpretation would be entirely unworkable in practice because it would extend individual strict liability to every owner or executive of a business in New York City,” wrote Elise M. Bloom. “The City Human Rights Law may be construed ‘broadly’ only to the extent that such an interpretation is ‘reasonably possible.’”
Listen to oral arguments on 1/05/2021
Watch and listen as the New York State of Appeals live-streams oral arguments on this important topic on Thursday, January 7, 2021 at 12pm. After hearing oral arguments, the Court of Appeals will take some time to write its decision on this case