Workplace Harassment in New York | Repeated Unwanted Conduct

From 2019 through 2022, a male bus driver (“B”) repeatedly expressed unilateral romantic interest toward a female bus driver employed by the same New York transportation company. 

Although the individuals held the same job title, the conduct was not mutual. 

In May 2020, the victim explicitly rejected B’s advances and clearly communicated that further contact was unwelcome, placing the conduct squarely within the scope of potential Workplace Harassment.

Despite this rejection, B continued his behavior. 

On multiple occasions, he boarded the victim’s bus as a passenger, remaining onboard for extended periods of time and repositioning himself closer to her after other passengers disembarked. 

These actions caused ongoing discomfort and anxiety, contributing to a hostile working environment indicative of Workplace Harassment under New York standards.

The employer initially attempted to address the issue through corrective measures, including obtaining a written assurance from B promising not to repeat the conduct and modifying work schedules to minimize contact. 

However, these steps proved ineffective. B’s conduct persisted, demonstrating that informal interventions were insufficient to prevent further Workplace Harassment.

As the behavior continued, the victim experienced increasing psychological distress.

Ultimately, she filed a formal internal complaint alleging sexual harassment and Workplace Harassment, triggering an internal investigation and subsequent disciplinary proceedings consistent with New York workplace compliance obligations.

Following the victim’s complaint, B’s conduct was also reported to law enforcement. 

He was charged under New York’s anti-stalking framework, which criminalizes repeated unwanted contact causing fear or distress. 

The case concluded with B receiving a criminal fine pursuant to a summary disposition, reinforcing the seriousness of the conduct underlying the Workplace Harassment claim.

While criminal penalties alone do not determine employment outcomes, the disposition served as objective confirmation that B’s behavior exceeded socially acceptable boundaries. 

This reinforced the employer’s position that the conduct was not a private matter but a form of Workplace Harassment affecting workplace safety and dignity.

In subsequent employment-related proceedings, an administrative review body initially found that B’s conduct did not constitute Workplace Harassment because there was no clear “superior-subordinate” relationship. 

It concluded that only some disciplinary grounds were established and that termination was excessive, characterizing the dismissal as wrongful.

This narrow interpretation of power dynamics became the central issue on appeal, raising the question of whether Workplace Harassment in New York requires formal authority or whether factual dominance and situational pressure are sufficient.

The court emphasized that Workplace Harassment does not require a formal position of authority. 

In this case, factual circumstances established a power imbalance: the workforce consisted overwhelmingly of male drivers, the perpetrator was older, and he had longer tenure. 

These factors created a setting in which the victim was socially and psychologically disadvantaged, satisfying the “relational superiority” element of Workplace Harassment.

The court further noted that persistent conduct, when combined with workplace rumors and social pressure, can amplify harm. 

Even without managerial authority, B’s actions exerted undue influence and caused significant emotional distress, thereby degrading the victim’s working conditions.

After the victim publicly raised the issue in a group communication channel to protect herself, B responded by disparaging her to colleagues and portraying himself as the victim. 

The court found that this conduct exacerbated the harm and reinforced the hostile environment, a core component of Workplace Harassment under New York law.

The court concluded that repeated unwanted advances, combined with public blame-shifting and rumor propagation, clearly constituted Workplace Harassment. Accordingly, termination was deemed proportionate and lawful.

The ruling reaffirms that Workplace Harassment can arise from factual dominance, not just formal authority. 

Factors such as gender imbalance, seniority, persistence, and social influence are all relevant. 

This aligns with New York’s commitment to preventing hostile work environments regardless of organizational hierarchy.

Employers must therefore assess complaints holistically, focusing on the lived experience of the victim. 

Failure to recognize subtle but persistent forms of Workplace Harassment may expose organizations to significant legal risk.

For employers, the case highlights the importance of prompt, effective intervention and the limitations of informal corrective measures. 

Robust investigation procedures, clear anti-harassment policies, and decisive action are essential to prevent Workplace Harassment and ensure compliance with New York law.

At SJKP, we assist employers and employees in navigating Workplace Harassment issues in New York, from internal investigations to litigation strategy. 

If you are facing a Workplace Harassment concern or need guidance on prevention and compliance, our team is ready to help. 

Contact us for tailored legal support and strategic advice.