## Facts

- Adolfo Mendez-Nouel worked as a sales associate at a Gucci America, Inc. retail store, including at Gucci’s Fifth Avenue flagship in Manhattan.
- During his employment, managers documented repeated concerns about his workplace behavior, including at least four instances of formal or informal counseling about conduct such as rudeness to customers and related issues.
- Mendez-Nouel made a formal complaint to his human resources representative alleging same-sex harassment by two managers, both of whom he believed were gay men.
- He alleged the store manager touched him inappropriately by rubbing his back on two occasions.
- He alleged his immediate supervisor made sexually charged comments about Mendez-Nouel’s sexual orientation as a straight man, including remarks suggesting he was “gay” or “gay inside,” and other sexual talk in the workplace.
- Mendez-Nouel claimed that after he resisted the touching and did not participate in sexual banter, the managers targeted him and that his later discharge was retaliation for complaining to HR.
- Gucci investigated Mendez-Nouel’s harassment complaint.
- Around the same period, coworkers reported to HR that Mendez-Nouel appeared agitated at work, said that “something big was going to happen,” and made jokes about shootings.
- HR suspended Mendez-Nouel while investigating the reported statements.
- Gucci terminated his employment, stating that the discharge was based on his “disturbing statements.”
- After filing an administrative charge with the EEOC and receiving a right-to-sue letter, Mendez-Nouel sued Gucci under Title VII, the NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL, asserting hostile work environment and retaliation.

## Issues

1. Whether the alleged conduct (two instances of back rubbing and sporadic sexual comments) was sufficiently severe or pervasive, and sufficiently tied to sex (and, under state law, sexual orientation), to support a hostile-work-environment claim under Title VII and the NYSHRL.
2. Whether Gucci retaliated against Mendez-Nouel for complaining to HR by suspending and terminating him, and whether Gucci’s stated reason for termination was a cover for retaliation under Title VII and the NYSHRL.
3. Whether the federal court should keep jurisdiction over the NYCHRL claims after dismissing the federal and parallel state claims.

## Decision

- Granted summary judgment to Gucci on the Title VII hostile-work-environment claim.
- Granted summary judgment to Gucci on the NYSHRL hostile-work-environment claim.
- Granted summary judgment to Gucci on the Title VII retaliation claim.
- Granted summary judgment to Gucci on the NYSHRL retaliation claim.
- Declined supplemental jurisdiction over the NYCHRL claims and dismissed them without prejudice.

## Legal Principles

- A hostile work environment under Title VII requires proof that the workplace was permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, or insult that was objectively and subjectively hostile, sufficiently severe or pervasive, and imposed because of the plaintiff’s sex.
- Same-sex harassment is actionable only if the plaintiff can show the conduct was because of sex (not merely sexual in content or workplace friction).
- Isolated or sporadic incidents—such as brief touching and occasional sexual comments—ordinarily do not meet the “severe or pervasive” threshold required for Title VII and NYSHRL hostile-work-environment liability.
- Retaliation under Title VII and the NYSHRL requires protected activity, a materially adverse employment action, and a causal connection; once the employer offers a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason, the plaintiff must produce evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that reason was a cover for retaliation.
- A federal court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over local-law claims once it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

## Conclusion

The court entered summary judgment for Gucci on Mendez-Nouel’s Title VII and NYSHRL hostile-work-environment and retaliation claims, holding that the alleged two back rubs and sporadic sexual comments were too isolated and insufficiently linked to a protected status to satisfy the severe-or-pervasive standard, and that Gucci’s stated reason for suspending and terminating him—coworker reports of ominous statements and jokes about shootings—was a legitimate explanation not shown to be a pretext for retaliation; having resolved the federal and parallel state claims, the court dismissed the remaining NYCHRL claims without prejudice.


Mendez-Nouel v. Gucci America, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160530 (2012)