Sexual Harassment, Including During Company-Themed Halloween Party, Results in $170,000 Compensatory Damages Award Following Default

During just over one year of employment at Alliance, Maher experienced repeated sexualharassment and forcible touching by Agoglia. In October 2004, while Maher was dressed as a punk schoolgirl for a work-sponsored Halloween party, Agoglia approached her to ask if the fishnet stockings she was wearing were thigh-highs, and if so, to see them. (Id. ¶ 9–11.) In February 2005, Agoglia approached Maher while she was hanging office decorations and smacked her on the buttocks three times. (Compl.¶ 10.) At that time Maher asked him to stop harassing her, but in April 2005, while Maher was covering the reception desk, Agoglia approached her from behind to rub her shoulders and neck, forcing Maher to squirm out of his grip. (Id. ¶ 11.) Less than one month later, Agoglia again approached Maher at work and touched her on the buttocks while taunting her about pressing charges against him for his behavior. (Id. ¶ 12.)

In July 2005, Maher reported the incidents to her supervisor, Michelle Bello, who promised to investigate the situation, but Agoglia’s conduct continued. (Id. ¶¶ 20–22.) While Maher tried to avoid Agoglia in the office, during the next few months he gestured towards Maher’s breasts, touched her buttocks, blew in her ear, and grazed Maher’s breast while he tried to place a cigar down the front of her shirt. (Id. ¶¶ 13–16.)

*2

In September 2005, Maher wrote a letter to Bello asking what measures Alliance would take regarding her complaints. (Maher Aff. ¶¶ 28–29.) Agoglia was informed of the allegations against him and directed to apologize to Maher, but Alliance took no further action. (Id. ¶¶ 29–31.) In November 2005, Maher had Agoglia arrested for his behavior, and she resigned from her employment with Alliance, unable to remain in a hostile work environment.

Here, Maher was humiliated by Agoglia’s repeated inappropriate touching, described above, as well as Alliance’s failure to address her complaints. (Maher Aff. ¶ 26.) She was only eighteen years old at the time and extremely upset by the harassment she endured at work. (Id. ¶ 33.) She dreaded going to work, and had difficulty sleeping. (Id.) She reported that Alliance’s conduct aggravated her irritable bowel syndrome and temporomandibular joint disorder, requiring her to seek medical attention. (Id. ¶ 34; Maher Aff., Ex. E, 5/15/06 Psychologist’s Report, at 10.) Maher alleged that she also sought psychological counseling. A report based on her two psychologist visits in January and February of 2006 notes that at the time of her visits, she was suffering from clinical depression and anxiety. (Maher Aff., Ex. E, 5/15/06 Psychologist’s Report, at 10–11.) The report concludes that “[t]here is little doubt that the months of sexual harassment suffered by this young woman have had a significant, adverse impact on her mental health.” (Id. at 11.) The report suggested that Maher continue sessions with a psychologist to address her problems and symptoms. (Id. at 12.) Maher did not continue to receive psychological treatment, nor is there evidence that her emotional distress was ongoing. Further, in spite of her emotional distress, Maher was able to secure other employment, although the psychologist’s report notes that she complained of being unable to focus in her new position. (Id. at 11.) Thus, in light of her allegations regarding the physical manifestations of her emotional distress and the corroborating psychological evaluation by a professional, the undersigned finds that Maher’s emotional distress is properly categorized as significant.

While Maher’s uncontested evidence of emotional distress is significant because her claims allege the need for medical attention, an award of $2,000,000 would be excessive. Courts in this Circuit have routinely found that awards ranging from $100,000 to $500,000 are not excessive for significant emotional distress damages. See Port Auth. Police Asian Jade Soc. of New York & New Jersey Inc. v. Port Auth. of New York & New Jersey, 681 F.Supp.2d 456, 470 (S.D.N.Y.2010) (awards of $250,000 to two plaintiffs was extremely large for Title VII discrimination claim, but did not shock the judicial conscience sufficient to warrant a reduction); Olsen, 615 F.Supp.2d at 49 (awards of $500,000, $400,000 and $100,000 to three plaintiffs on Title VII and Section 1983 claims were not excessive);Simmons v. New York City Transit Auth., No. CV 02–1575(CPS)(RLM), 2008 WL 2788755, at *9–10 (E.D.N.Y. July 17, 2008) (award of $150,000 was not excessive for Title VII retaliation claim); Petroyits v. New York City Transit Auth., No. CV 95–9872(DFE), 2003 WL 22349676, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Oct.15, 2003) (award of $150,000 not excessive for Title VII discrimination claim). As Maher’s damages are limited to $200,000 by statute and that amount falls within the typical range of damages awarded for significant emotional distress on Title VII claims, the undersigned therefore respectfully recommends that Maher be awarded $170,000 in compensatory damages.