Khatskevich v Victor
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Whether a condominium could be held liable for alleged sexual harassment under the New York City Human Rights Law (City HRL) (Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-107 [prohibits discrimination, including sexual harassment, retaliation, and aiding and abetting discrimination]) when the plaintiff was not its employee but allegedly was harassed by the condominium board president.
The lower court originally dismissed all claims against Manhattan Place Condominium (MPC) because plaintiff was not employed by MPC. On reargument, it reinstated the sexual harassment claim after finding a factual issue as to whether Adam Victor acted as MPC's agent.
The Appellate Division reversed the reinstatement of the sexual harassment claim and dismissed that cause of action against MPC.
The appellate court held that even if Victor was MPC's agent, MPC could not be liable for his alleged sexual harassment of plaintiff because the undisputed record showed that MPC was not plaintiff's employer, and agency alone does not create liability under the City HRL in these circumstances.
Background
Plaintiff Yevgeniya Khatskevich worked as administrative assistant to Adam Victor, who served as president of MPC's Board of Managers from about 2000 to 2019. In February 2014, plaintiff sued Victor, his companies, and MPC, asserting claims including sexual harassment, retaliation, and aiding and abetting sexual harassment under the City HRL.
Lower Court Decision
In a March 4, 2024 order, Supreme Court dismissed the complaint in its entirety against MPC, finding no triable issue that MPC was plaintiff's employer. After plaintiff moved to reargue, the court adhered to its finding that plaintiff was not employed by MPC, but it vacated the dismissal of the fifth cause of action for sexual harassment, reasoning that there was a factual issue whether Victor was MPC's agent and whether his conduct could therefore be imputed to MPC.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division unanimously reversed the order on reargument to the extent appealed from and dismissed the sexual harassment claim against MPC. It held that the claim should have been dismissed regardless of whether Victor was MPC's agent because plaintiff was not MPC's employee. Citing Doe v Bloomberg, L.P., 36 NY3d 450 (2021), the court explained that an agency relationship, without an employment relationship between plaintiff and MPC, was insufficient to impute liability to MPC for Victor's alleged misconduct.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces that under the City HRL, employer status remains a necessary predicate for holding an entity liable for workplace sexual harassment in this context. A plaintiff cannot impose liability on an entity solely because the alleged harasser may have been that entity's agent if the plaintiff was not employed by that entity.
A condominium or similar entity is not liable under the City HRL for alleged sexual harassment by its board president toward a person who was not its employee, even if the president arguably acted as the entity's agent.