Introduction

Background of Workplace Harassment Laws

Workplace harassment, particularly sexual harassment, continues to be a pervasive issue in the United States despite the comprehensive protections established under federal and state law. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) forms the foundation of these protections, prohibiting employers from discriminating against employees based on sex, which includes sexual harassment and retaliation. Title VII covers both quid pro quo harassment—where job benefits are conditioned on submitting to unwelcome sexual advances—and hostile work environments, where pervasive harassment makes the work environment unbearable.

In addition to Title VII, state and local laws, such as the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), provide additional layers of protection for employees. These laws ensure that workers in New York have recourse for harassment and retaliation. In many cases, they offer broader protections than federal law, such as lowering the threshold for proving harassment or retaliation.

In this legal commentary, we will explore the case of Peters v. Carver Bancorp, Inc., where Tamara Peters alleges that she was subjected to quid pro quo sexual harassment by her supervisor, Robert Rennis, who demanded sexual favors in exchange for job security and professional advancement. After rejecting Rennis’ advances, Peters faced a series of retaliatory actions that created a hostile work environment, ultimately leading to her constructive discharge. This case highlights the significant psychological and professional toll that sexual harassment and retaliation can take on victims.

Additionally, we will examine the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, which expands the scope of Title VII retaliation claims. The decision clarifies that non-economic harms—such as changes in job responsibilities or professional exclusion—can be actionable under Title VII. This landmark decision directly impacts Peters’ case, providing legal support for her retaliation claims based on non-tangible harms. This commentary will analyze how the Muldrow decision broadens the interpretation of retaliation under federal law while providing practical guidance for employees facing similar workplace issues.

I. Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment under Title VII

Legal Definition of Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment

Quid pro quo sexual harassment occurs when an employee’s job benefits, such as promotions, salary increases, or even continued employment, are conditioned on the acceptance of unwelcome sexual advances. Under Title VII, this form of harassment constitutes sex-based discrimination because it creates unequal conditions in the workplace based on an employee’s willingness to submit to sexual demands.

The courts have long held that quid pro quo sexual harassment occurs when a supervisor exploits their position of power over the employee to gain sexual favors. In such cases, the supervisor’s behavior is inherently tied to their authority to make employment decisions that impact the employee’s job security or career trajectory. Even a single instance of quid pro quo harassment can violate Title VII, as it fundamentally alters the terms and conditions of employment.

In New York, the NYSHRL and NYCHRL supplement federal law, providing even broader employee protections. The NYCHRL, in particular, makes it easier for employees to bring claims by removing the requirement that harassment must be “severe or pervasive” to be actionable. Under the NYCHRL, any unwelcome sexual conduct that affects the terms or conditions of employment can form the basis of a harassment claim.

Detailed Allegations from the Federal Complaint

In the case of Peters v. Carver Bancorp, Inc., the plaintiff, Tamara Peters, describes a disturbing pattern of quid pro quo sexual harassment that began shortly after she was hired as a Universal Banker. The federal complaint provides a detailed account of how her supervisor, Robert Rennis, used his position of authority to try and coerce her into a sexual relationship. Peters’ allegations offer insight into how power dynamics in the workplace can be exploited, leaving victims feeling vulnerable and trapped.

• Harassment During the Hiring Process (September 2023): Peters first encountered Rennis’ inappropriate behavior during the interview process. When Peters applied for the position, Rennis conducted her interview and made several inappropriate comments about her appearance. He inquired about her relationship status, asking if she was single and whether she would be “open to exploring opportunities beyond the office.” Despite feeling uncomfortable, Peters proceeded with the interview, eager to secure employment. Rennis clarified that her prospects for securing the job were tied to how “accommodating” she was willing to be. These early advances set the tone for what would become an escalating pattern of harassment after Peters joined the company.
• Ongoing Harassment After Employment Began: Once Peters started working at Carver Bancorp, Rennis’ behavior became more overt. He frequently commented on her physical appearance, telling her she was “too attractive to be working behind a desk” and that she “should be spending more time with him.” Rennis often invited Peters to dinner or drinks after work, implying that such meetings would help her advance within the company. When Peters declined these invitations, Rennis became increasingly frustrated, saying, “If you don’t know how to play the game, you’ll never get ahead.” His comments, though cloaked in professional language, clearly implied that Peters’ career success was contingent on her willingness to engage in a personal relationship with him.
• The September 22, 2023 Incident: The harassment culminated in a particularly egregious incident on September 22, 2023, when Rennis offered Peters a ride home after a company event. Feeling cornered and wanting to avoid a confrontation in front of her colleagues, Peters reluctantly accepted the offer. During the drive, Rennis placed his hand on her upper thigh and began moving it toward her vaginal area. When Peters pushed his hand away and told him to stop, Rennis dismissed her objections, saying, “You need to relax—you’re making this harder than it needs to be.” He then forcibly kissed her before she could exit the car. Peters felt violated and ashamed, unsure of how to report the incident or what consequences she might face if she did.
• Pressure and Retaliation Following the Incident: After the car ride incident, Rennis’ behavior escalated. He began demanding that Peters spend more time alone with him in his office and implied that she could lose her job if she didn’t comply with his advances. He told her, “I can make or break your career here,” and started to take actions that made her work environment increasingly hostile. This included isolating Peters from important meetings and clients, placing her under undue scrutiny, and eventually putting her on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) for unfounded reasons.

Employer Liability for Quid Pro Quo Harassment

Carver Bancorp, Inc. is vicariously liable for Rennis’s actions under Title VII, as Rennis was in a supervisory position with direct control over Peters’ employment conditions. Under Title VII, an employer can be held liable for the discriminatory actions of its supervisors when those actions alter the terms and conditions of an employee’s job. The harassment Peters endured not only affected her emotional well-being but also her professional reputation, as Rennis’ actions made it difficult for her to perform her job effectively.

In New York, the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL hold employers accountable for quid pro quo harassment, with the NYCHRL providing particularly strong protections for employees. Under the NYCHRL, an employer can be held strictly liable for the actions of its supervisors, regardless of whether the harassment meets the “severe or pervasive” standard often required under federal law. This means that even a single incident, such as the car ride assault, could be enough to establish liability under the NYCHRL.

Impact on Victims of Quid Pro Quo Harassment

Victims of quid pro quo harassment often experience profound emotional and psychological harm. The constant pressure to submit to sexual advances to secure professional opportunities or avoid negative consequences creates a toxic work environment. For victims like Peters, the sense of powerlessness can be overwhelming as they are forced to navigate a workplace where their career prospects are tied to their willingness to endure harassment. This dynamic often leads to anxiety, depression, and a loss of confidence, as victims are left questioning their own abilities and self-worth.

II. Retaliation under Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL

Retaliation Defined

Retaliation occurs when an employer takes adverse action against an employee for engaging in a protected activity, such as refusing to comply with sexual advances or reporting harassment. Under Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL, employees are protected from retaliation if they assert their rights by opposing or investigating discriminatory practices.

Retaliation can take many forms, including demotions, unfavorable job assignments, poor performance reviews, or other adverse actions to punish the employee for standing up against harassment or discrimination. In some cases, retaliation may involve more subtle forms of punishment, such as social isolation, increased scrutiny, or exclusion from key professional opportunities. Regardless of its form, retaliation creates a chilling effect in the workplace, making employees afraid to assert their rights for fear of facing negative consequences. The law recognizes that such behavior violates the rights of individual employees and undermines the overall goal of maintaining a safe and equitable workplace.

Retaliation in the Peters Complaint

In Peters v. Carver Bancorp, Inc., Tamara Peters experienced retaliation after she refused her supervisor’s sexual advances and attempted to resist his harassment. The retaliation Peters endured was designed to punish her for rejecting Rennis’ advances and to force her out of the company. Her complaint details several key instances of retaliation that ultimately contributed to her constructive discharge:

• Performance Improvement Plan (March 2024): After Peters repeatedly rebuffed Rennis’ advances, he placed her on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) in March 2024. This PIP was based on unfounded allegations of tardiness and underperformance, despite Peters’ strong track record before her conflict with Rennis began. The timing of the PIP, shortly after she rejected his sexual advances, makes it clear that the PIP was retaliatory, designed to create a paper trail to justify her eventual termination.
• Exclusion from Key Meetings and Clients: Besides the PIP, Rennis systematically excluded Peters from important client meetings and reassigned many key accounts to other employees. This exclusion diminished Peters’ role within the company and damaged her professional relationships with clients, making it harder for her to succeed. Peters was sidelined, with fewer opportunities to contribute meaningfully to the company’s success.
• Increased Scrutiny and Micromanagement: Rennis also began micromanaging Peters’ daily activities, subjecting her to constant scrutiny. He would often criticize her work in front of her colleagues, creating an atmosphere of humiliation and isolation. This increased scrutiny made it nearly impossible for Peters to perform her job effectively, further alienating her from her peers and worsening her already hostile work environment.
• Threatened Transfer: Rennis also repeatedly threatened to transfer Peters to a less desirable branch if she did not comply with his demands. While the transfer was never officially enacted, the ongoing threat of reassignment loomed over Peters, contributing to her anxiety and making her work environment intolerable. The constant fear of being removed from her position and sent to a lower-status location added to the emotional toll Peters experienced.

The Muldrow Decision and Its Impact on Retaliation Claims

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis has significantly broadened the scope of what constitutes actionable retaliation under Title VII. Before Muldrow, courts often required employees to show tangible economic harm, such as a demotion or loss of pay, to succeed in a retaliation claim. Non-economic harms, such as increased scrutiny, exclusion from meetings, or changes in job responsibilities, were often dismissed as insufficient to support a claim under Title VII. This narrow interpretation of retaliation left many employees without recourse, as subtle but harmful retaliatory actions were often overlooked.

In Muldrow, the Supreme Court clarified that non-economic harms—such as changes in job responsibilities, professional isolation, or increased scrutiny—can be sufficient to establish a retaliation claim under Title VII. The key question is whether the retaliatory action left the employee worse off regarding their job conditions or professional standing, even if there was no direct loss of salary or title.

In Peters v. Carver Bancorp, Inc., Peters experienced multiple non-economic harms that worsened her professional standing and made her work environment unbearable. The retaliatory actions she faced, including being placed on a PIP, excluded from key client meetings, subjected to increased scrutiny, and threatened with transfer, are all examples of the types of non-tangible harms that Muldrow now recognizes as actionable. Even though Peters maintained her title and salary, the retaliatory actions significantly impacted her ability to perform her job, undermined her professional reputation, and created a hostile work environment.

The Muldrow decision has far-reaching implications for employees like Peters, as it expands the types of retaliation recognized under federal law. This broader interpretation of retaliation ensures that employees are protected from all forms of retaliatory behavior, not just those that involve tangible economic losses. For Peters, the Muldrow decision strengthens her legal claims by acknowledging that the non-economic harms she suffered sufficiently support a retaliation claim under Title VII.

Employer Liability for Retaliation

Employers are liable for retaliation when they take or allow adverse actions against employees who exercise their rights. Under Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL, employers are prohibited from retaliating against employees for opposing discriminatory practices or participating in investigations. In Peters v. Carver Bancorp, Inc., Rennis’ actions constitute retaliation, as they were designed to punish Peters for rejecting his advances and create a hostile work environment that would force her to resign.

The NYCHRL provides especially broad protections against retaliation. It focuses on whether the employer’s actions left the employee worse off rather than requiring proof of significant economic harm. This lower threshold for proving retaliation ensures that employees like Peters, who face subtle but damaging retaliatory actions, can access legal remedies.

III. Assault and Battery Claims

Legal Definitions of Assault and Battery

In New York, civil assault occurs when one person intentionally causes another to fear imminent harmful or offensive contact. Battery occurs when harmful or offensive contact occurs without the victim’s consent. These claims are often pursued alongside sexual harassment cases, particularly when the harassment involves physical contact or coercion.

Assault and battery are distinct legal claims, but they often arise together in cases involving sexual misconduct. Assault focuses on the victim’s fear of being harmed, while battery addresses the actual physical contact that occurs. Both claims allow victims to seek compensation for the emotional, psychological, and physical harm they suffer as a result of the defendant’s actions.

Assault and Battery in the Peters Complaint

In Peters v. Carver Bancorp, Inc., Peters alleges several instances of assault and battery in connection with Rennis’ ongoing harassment. These incidents contributed to the hostile environment Peters experienced and further demonstrated Rennis’ disregard for her personal autonomy and safety.

• September 22, 2023 Incident: The most significant instance of assault and battery occurred during the car ride after a company event on September 22, 2023. As described earlier, Rennis placed his hand on Peters’ thigh and moved it toward her vaginal area without her consent. Despite Peters’ clear objections and attempts to push him away, Rennis continued to touch her inappropriately, ultimately kissing her against her will. This incident constitutes both assault (Peters’ fear of further physical contact) and battery (the actual physical contact without her consent). Peters felt violated and ashamed, unsure of how to report the incident or whether she would face retaliation if she did.
• Ongoing Unwanted Physical Contact in the Workplace: Besides the car ride incident, Rennis frequently made unwanted physical contact with Peters in the office. Despite her clear discomfort, he would place his hands on her back, shoulders, and arms during meetings or while passing by her desk. Though less severe than the car incident, these unwanted touches further contributed to the hostile environment Peters faced at work. Each time Rennis touched her without consent, it reinforced the power dynamic in their relationship, leaving Peters feeling powerless to stop the harassment.

Legal Remedies for Assault and Battery

Victims of assault and battery in New York are entitled to seek compensatory damages for the emotional, psychological, and physical harm they suffer. In Peters’ case, the non-consensual touching in the car and the workplace caused her significant emotional distress, anxiety, and humiliation. These physical acts of harassment not only violated her personal space but also exacerbated the hostile work environment she experienced.

Peters can also seek punitive damages designed to punish Rennis for his egregious behavior and deter similar conduct in the future. Punitive damages are typically awarded in cases where the defendant’s conduct is malicious or reckless. In this case, despite Peters’ clear objections, Rennis’ repeated and deliberate actions demonstrate a blatant disregard for her rights and safety, making punitive damages an appropriate remedy.

IV. Broader Legal Implications Post-Muldrow

Expanded Scope of Retaliation Claims Under Muldrow

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis significantly reshaped the legal landscape for retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Before Muldrow, courts typically required employees to show they had suffered tangible economic harm—such as demotion, pay reduction, or termination—to bring a successful retaliation claim. This narrow interpretation often left employees without legal recourse for more subtle, non-economic retaliatory actions. These could include exclusion from meetings, changes in job duties, or increased scrutiny, which might affect an employee’s professional standing without directly impacting their pay or position.

In Muldrow, the Supreme Court broadened the scope of actionable retaliation claims by clarifying that non-economic harms, which leave the employee worse off regarding their job conditions or professional standing, can also establish a retaliation claim. The key issue in retaliation cases post-Muldrow is whether the employer’s adverse action negatively impacted the employee’s ability to perform their job, grow within the company, or maintain their professional standing. Thus, even if there was no direct financial loss, the fact that an employee’s work environment became more hostile or their responsibilities diminished may be enough to sustain a retaliation claim.

Application of Muldrow to Peters v. Carver Bancorp

In Peters v. Carver Bancorp, Inc., the retaliatory actions Tamara Peters endured fall squarely within the expanded definition of retaliation outlined in Muldrow. After Peters rejected her supervisor Robert Rennis’ sexual advances, she was subjected to a series of non-economic harms that, while not directly tied to her pay or job title, left her significantly worse off in her role at the company.

• Performance Improvement Plan (PIP): One of the first retaliatory measures Peters faced was being placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) in March 2024. This occurred shortly after she rejected Rennis’ advances, and the timing strongly suggests that the PIP was not based on legitimate performance concerns but rather on retaliation. The PIP was allegedly due to tardiness and underperformance despite Peters consistently meeting or exceeding her targets before the conflict with Rennis. In this instance, the PIP created a paper trail that could later be used to justify her termination or other adverse employment actions. Though the PIP did not immediately affect Peters’ pay, it placed her in a precarious position within the company and damaged her professional reputation.
• Exclusion from Key Meetings: Peters was also systematically excluded from important meetings with high-value clients. This isolation was a significant blow to her career, as it effectively limited her ability to contribute meaningfully to the company’s success and to maintain relationships with important clients. Exclusion from meetings can devastate an employee’s professional standing, especially in roles that depend on client interaction. While this action does not directly result in a loss of pay or demotion, it diminishes the employee’s role and presence within the company. Under the Muldrow standard, this exclusion from key meetings and decision-making processes qualifies as retaliation because it left Peters worse off in her professional capacity, hindering her ability to advance within the company.
• Increased Scrutiny and Micromanagement: After rejecting Rennis, Peters was subjected to intense micromanagement and constant scrutiny of her work. Rennis began publicly criticizing her in front of colleagues and nitpicking her performance despite her proven track record. This increased scrutiny created a hostile work environment, making it nearly impossible for Peters to perform her job effectively. Being singled out for criticism and subjected to excessive oversight is a form of retaliation that creates undue stress and undermines an employee’s confidence and reputation. Under the Muldrow decision, these actions constitute retaliation because they negatively impacted Peters’ ability to thrive in her role, even though they did not directly affect her salary or title.
• Threatened Transfer: Rennis retaliated by repeatedly threatening to transfer Peters to a less desirable branch. Although the transfer was never carried out, the constant threat added to Peters’s hostile environment. The looming possibility of being moved to a lower-status location, where her career prospects would be diminished, created anxiety and further isolated her from her colleagues. Even though Peters remained in her original branch, the ongoing threat of transfer made her feel trapped and powerless. The Muldrow ruling clarifies that such non-tangible harms, which do not necessarily result in immediate financial consequences but worsen the employee’s professional standing, are actionable under Title VII.

The “Some Harm” Standard Introduced in Muldrow

The Muldrow decision introduced what is often referred to as the “some harm” standard for retaliation claims. This standard broadens the scope of retaliation by allowing employees to pursue claims based on non-economic harms that leave them worse off in their jobs, even if those harms do not result in a formal demotion, pay cut, or termination. Under the “some harm” standard, the key issue is whether the employer’s retaliatory actions altered the employee’s work conditions, career trajectory, or professional reputation. The Muldrow Court recognized that retaliation can take many forms, and subtle actions such as increased scrutiny, changes in job responsibilities, or social isolation within the workplace can profoundly impact an employee’s success and well-being.

This standard is particularly relevant in cases like Peters v. Carver Bancorp, Inc., where Peters experienced a series of non-tangible harms that significantly worsened her job conditions without directly affecting her pay or title. Under the “some harm” standard, the fact that Peters was excluded from meetings, subjected to increased scrutiny, and threatened with transfer is sufficient to establish a retaliation claim, as these actions made her worse off in terms of her ability to succeed in her role and advance within the company.

The “some harm” standard protects employees from more subtle forms of retaliation that might otherwise go unaddressed under the traditional economic harm requirement. It ensures that employees like Peters, who experience professional isolation, diminished responsibilities, and a hostile work environment, can seek legal recourse even if their salary or title remains unchanged.

Constructive Discharge in Light of Muldrow

Constructive discharge occurs when an employer creates such intolerable working conditions that a reasonable employee in the same situation would feel compelled to resign. It is treated as a form of wrongful termination, as the employee’s resignation directly results from the employer’s unlawful actions. Even though the employee technically resigns, the law recognizes that the resignation was not voluntary but was forced upon the employee by the hostile environment created by the employer.

In Peters v. Carver Bancorp, Inc., the combination of ongoing sexual harassment, retaliatory actions, and the constant threat of transfer made Peters’ work environment so intolerable that she felt she had no reasonable choice but to resign. The emotional distress and professional isolation caused by Rennis’ actions left Peters feeling trapped and without viable options to continue working at the company. Peters’ resignation was not the result of a voluntary decision but was effectively forced by the hostile environment she faced daily.

The Muldrow decision strengthens Peters’ constructive discharge claim by recognizing that non-economic harms, such as exclusion from meetings, placement on a PIP, and constant scrutiny, can contribute to an intolerable work environment. Under the expanded scope of retaliation claims established by Muldrow, employers can no longer avoid liability simply because the employee retains their title or salary. Instead, the focus is on whether the working conditions became so unbearable that the employee had no reasonable alternative but to resign. In Peters’ case, the hostile work environment created by Rennis’ harassment and retaliation left her with no choice but to leave her job, making her resignation a constructive discharge.

Employer Best Practices to Avoid Liability Post-Muldrow

The Muldrow decision clearly warns employers that all forms of retaliation, including non-tangible harms, must be taken seriously. To avoid liability, employers must ensure that their policies and practices protect employees from subtle forms of retaliation, such as changes in job responsibilities, exclusion from meetings, or increased scrutiny. Employers should be proactive in creating a work environment that discourages all forms of harassment and retaliation and should take swift and effective action when complaints are filed.

To prevent situations like those faced by Peters, employers should implement comprehensive training programs for supervisors and employees that emphasize the expanded understanding of retaliation under Muldrow. These training programs should clarify that retaliation can take many forms beyond demotion or termination. Employees should be aware that even non-tangible harms, such as being micromanaged or excluded from important meetings, can have significant consequences and that such actions will not be tolerated.

Additionally, employers must create clear reporting mechanisms for employees who experience harassment or retaliation. These mechanisms should ensure that all complaints are thoroughly investigated and addressed promptly. Employers should also establish safeguards to protect employees who file complaints from facing any form of economic or non-economic retaliation.

In Peters v. Carver Bancorp, Inc., Carver Bancorp failed to take appropriate action to protect Peters from Rennis’ harassment and retaliation. This failure contributed to the hostile work environment Peters faced and placed the company at significant legal risk. The company’s inaction allowed Rennis to continue his retaliatory behavior unchecked, ultimately forcing Peters into a constructive discharge. Employers must understand that failing to respond to harassment and retaliation complaints can lead to significant liability, particularly in light of the Muldrow decision’s broadened scope of retaliation claims.

By implementing these best practices, employers can help create a safer, more equitable work environment and avoid the legal risks associated with retaliation claims under Muldrow’s new “some harm” standard.