## Facts

- Andree J. Leopold worked as a sales employee at Baccarat, Inc.’s New York store from August 1971 until she was discharged on July 29, 1994.
- Leopold alleged Baccarat terminated her because of age in violation of the ADEA and the New York Human Rights Law (NYHRL).
- Leopold also alleged she was subjected to a sex-based hostile work environment in violation of Title VII and the NYHRL.
- Her hostile-environment evidence centered on conduct by her supervisor, including repeated sex-based remarks and threats to fire employees and replace them with “young and sexy” hires.
- At trial, after Leopold rested, the district court granted judgment as a matter of law for Baccarat on the hostile work environment claim.
- The age-discrimination claim proceeded to the jury, which returned a verdict for Baccarat.
- Leopold sought appellate relief based on (1) sufficiency of her hostile-environment proof and (2) alleged evidentiary errors affecting the age-discrimination verdict, including admission of testimony about her alleged bigoted remarks and exclusion of certain evidence about discharges of other older employees.

## Issues

1. Whether Leopold’s evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find a sex-based hostile work environment, making judgment as a matter of law improper.
2. Whether evidentiary rulings in the age-discrimination trial required a new trial, including (a) admitting testimony about Leopold’s alleged bigoted comments and (b) excluding evidence about discharges of other employees in their 50s and 60s.

## Decision

- The court vacated the judgment as a matter of law on the hostile work environment claim and remanded for a new trial on that claim.
- The court held that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Leopold, a reasonable jury could find the supervisor’s repeated sex-based comments and threats were sufficiently severe or pervasive to create an abusive work environment.
- The court affirmed the judgment for Baccarat on the age-discrimination claim based on the jury’s verdict.
- The court held the challenged evidentiary rulings on the age claim were within the district court’s discretion and did not warrant a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- A Title VII hostile work environment exists when the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive environment.
- NYHRL hostile-environment claims are analyzed under the same standard as Title VII hostile-environment claims.
- Judgment as a matter of law is improper if, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, a reasonable jury could find for that party.
- Evidentiary rulings, including Rule 403 balancing of probative value against unfair prejudice, are reviewed for abuse of discretion and are reversed only when the ruling exceeds permissible discretion and causes prejudicial error.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit required a new trial on Leopold’s sex-based hostile work environment claim because her proof could support a jury finding of severe or pervasive discriminatory harassment, but it left intact the defense verdict on age discrimination, finding no reversible evidentiary error in the trial of that claim.


Leopold v. Baccarat, Inc., 174 F.3d 261 (2d Cir. 1999)