Background
Yevgeniya Khatskevich served as the administrative assistant to Adam Victor, who was president of Manhattan Place Condominium's (MPC) Board of Managers from around 2000 to 2019. In 2014, Khatskevich filed suit against Victor, his various companies, and MPC itself, alleging sexual harassment, retaliation, and aiding and abetting sexual harassment under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), Administrative Code § 8-107.
Supreme Court originally dismissed the complaint in its entirety against MPC, finding that Khatskevich was not MPC's employee. On reargument, the court adhered to the employment finding but reinstated the sexual harassment cause of action against MPC on the theory that Victor—acting as MPC's agent—could have his acts imputed to the condo board even absent an employment relationship. MPC appealed that reinstatement.
The Court's Holding
The Appellate Division, First Department reversed and dismissed the sexual harassment claim against MPC. Under the NYCHRL, employer liability for sexual harassment requires proof that the entity was the plaintiff's employer. Agency alone—without an underlying employer-employee relationship—is insufficient to impute a harasser's conduct to a third party such as a condominium board.
The court drew directly on the Court of Appeals' 2021 decision in Doe v. Bloomberg, L.P., 36 NY3d 450 (2021), which made clear that NYCHRL liability for a superior's harassment runs to the employing entity, not to every entity with which the harasser may have an agency relationship. Because there was no triable issue of fact as to whether MPC employed Khatskevich—she worked for Victor personally and his companies, not the condo board—even if Victor acted in some capacity as MPC's agent, that agency relationship without an employment nexus could not give rise to NYCHRL liability for the board.
The court also cited prior precedent from the same parties: a companion appeal had already resolved the same issue in Victor's favor against MPC.
Key Takeaways
- Under the NYCHRL, employer liability for sexual harassment requires an employment relationship; agency alone, without proof of an employer-employee relationship, cannot support imputed liability against a third entity such as a condominium board.
- Doe v. Bloomberg, L.P. remains the governing standard: NYCHRL sexual harassment liability attaches to the employing entity, not to every party with an agency connection to the alleged harasser.
- Condo boards are not automatically liable under the NYCHRL for the discriminatory conduct of their board officers where employees of those officers had no direct employment relationship with the board itself.
Why It Matters
This decision matters for New York City's vast condominium, co-op, and residential real estate management sector, where board officers routinely employ personal staff who interact with the building's common governance structure. The ruling forecloses a theory that would have exposed condominium associations to NYCHRL liability for harassment committed by board members against those members' personal employees—a class of potential defendants that could have extended to thousands of residential buildings.
Employment lawyers litigating NYCHRL claims should note that the agency theory cut off here was not frivolous: the court acknowledged Victor's dual role as both a private employer and a board president. The key fact that defeated the claim was the absence of any employer-employee relationship between Khatskevich and MPC itself. Plaintiffs' counsel pursuing harassment claims against institutional defendants connected to individual bad actors must be prepared to plead and prove an actual employment relationship between the plaintiff and the institutional entity—agency is not a substitute.