Bias charges against NYC Housing Authority reinstated

A federal appeals court on Monday reinstated discrimination and retaliation charges filed by a terminated Asian American probationary caretaker for the New York City Housing Authority, in a ruling critical of the lower court’s decision.

Xiamin Zeng, who worked as a probationary caretaker at three housing developments for the New York City Housing Authority for about 10 months beginning in July 2016, alleged she was assigned to work alone in a dangerous building where she was sexually assaulted despite that workers were usually assigned to work there in pairs, according to the ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York in Xiamin Zeng, AKA Aimee Zane v. New York City Housing Authority.

She also said she was subjected to racial and sexist remarks by supervisors and co-workers and forced to work outside without a coat for long hours during the cold month of November while NYCHA provided all other employees with winter coats.

Among other charges, she said she was the victim of racist comments, and that a supervisor walked in while she was using a bathroom and asked whether she was sleeping or taking a break.

Ms. Zeng sued the authority In U.S. District Court in New York, charging discrimination by subjecting her to a hostile work environment and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York City Human Rights Law.

The district court dismissed the federal charges, and was overturned by a three-judge appeals court panel. The district court “made unwarranted credibility determinations regarding the evidence,” it said. For instance, it described as “implausible” Ms. Zeng’s claims that she was both forced to work alone and that she was harassed by her co-workers and supervisors.

But “there is nothing in the record to suggest that, although Zeng alleges that she was assigned to work alone in the dangerous building, she did not interact with her co-workers and supervisors at other times during the workday, such as breaks and meetings,” a three-judge panel said, in reinstating her discrimination and retaliation charges.

Commenting on the appeals court ruling, Gabriel Oliver Koppell, of the Law Offices of G. Oliver Koppell & Associates in New York, who represented Ms. Zeng in the district court, said, “It’s clear that there were some real questions on the facts and interpretation of the facts that precluded summary judgment.”

A housing authority spokesman said in a statement, “We are reviewing the court’s decision and considering next steps. We will not comment further on active litigation matters.”