A Legal Commentary on Hostile Work Environment and Structural Coercion in Dual Dependency Relationships

I. Introduction

The Appellate Division’s March 2025 decision in Jannatul Ferdous & Wasiur Rahman v. Dr. Barnali Hasan & Dr. Mahfujul Hasan, Index No. 706543/2022, highlights the devastating consequences that arise when the boundaries between employment, housing, and personal autonomy are blurred—and exploited. The court’s decision to allow the hostile work environment claim to proceed while dismissing the remaining seven causes of action sheds light on the challenges faced by plaintiffs who attempt to hold powerful private actors accountable for intersectional abuse.

At the heart of this case is a disturbing pattern of alleged misconduct in which power was exercised simultaneously through employment and tenancy. Dr. Mahfujul Hasan, a licensed physician and employer, allegedly subjected plaintiff Jannatul Ferdous to prolonged sexual harassment, coercion, and psychological abuse. At the same time, he and his spouse—co-defendant Dr. Barnali Hasan—acted as both landlords and supervisors. The plaintiffs, immigrants with a child, were allegedly subjected to retaliatory policing, denial of medical care, abusive working and living conditions, and weaponized legal threats.

While the appellate court ultimately dismissed most claims, its preservation of the hostile work environment claim affirms that such conduct, when sufficiently pled, deserves to be examined through the lens of statutory anti-discrimination protections. More importantly, the facts of the case call for a deeper reflection on how power structures in small businesses can be wielded coercively in the absence of oversight—and how our laws can evolve to meet that challenge.

II. Factual Allegations: A Constellation of Abuse

The Verified Complaint outlines a harrowing chronology of abuse spanning from February 2019 through July 2021. Jannatul Ferdous was hired as a medical assistant by Efficient Medical & Dental Care, a Queens-based clinic operated by defendants Dr. Mahfujul Hasan and Dr. Barnali Hasan. Simultaneously, she and her husband, Wasiur Rahman, rented an apartment in the same building from the Hasans.

What began as a dual-role arrangement—employee/tenant—allegedly devolved into a coercive environment marked by:

A. Sexual Harassment and Coercion in the Workplace

• Daily sexual comments, leering, and inappropriate touching by Dr. Mahfujul Hasan.

• Repeated unwelcome sexual advances, including pressure to visit the apartment while her husband was away.

• Persistent propositions involving gifts and cash, coupled with degrading language aimed at separating her from her spouse.

• Physical abuse on clinic premises, including grabbing and physical intimidation.

• Alleged withholding of medical care after Ferdous sustained a workplace injury. Despite being her PCP, Dr. Barnali Hasan refused referrals for diagnostic imaging or specialist care.

B. Abuse in the Home: Dual Control Through Tenancy

• Unannounced entries into the plaintiffs’ apartment, mainly when Mr. Rahman was absent.

• Alleged physical abuse of the plaintiffs’ child and retaliatory behavior toward the family.

• Deprivation of basic utilities, including heat and hot water.

• Threats of eviction and verbal intimidation were designed to silence opposition and ensure compliance.

C. Retaliation and Malicious Prosecution

• After rejecting advances and objecting to the treatment, the plaintiffs claim that Dr. Mahfujul Hasan made a false report to the police, resulting in Mr. Rahman’s arrest and prosecution on fabricated charges.

• Alleged manipulation of local authorities, escalating from workplace harassment to criminalization.

• Repeated intimidation, including efforts to coerce silence through legal threats and public humiliation.

III. Procedural Posture and the Appellate Division’s Holding

The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied the defendants’ CPLR 3211(a)(7) motions to dismiss, permitting all eight causes of action to proceed. On appeal, the Second Department modified the order:

• All claims against Dr. Barnali Hasan were dismissed.

• All claims against Dr. Mahfujul Hasan were dismissed, except the hostile work environment claim, which was allowed to proceed.

The appellate panel reaffirmed the standard for dismissal under CPLR 3211(a)(7): whether the complaint “states a cause of action,” accepting all facts as true and granting plaintiffs every favorable inference. However, the court emphasized that conclusory or vague allegations—even if disturbing—cannot sustain claims for torts such as fraud, emotional distress, or breach of contract without pleading specific elements.

IV. The Surviving Claim: Hostile Work Environment

The Appellate Division preserved only one cause of action: hostile work environment based on sexual harassment. The court cited Bilirich v. NYC Health & Hospitals Corp., 194 AD3d 999 (2d Dep’t 2021), confirming that repeated, sexually charged behavior—particularly when coupled with unwanted physical contact and workplace power imbalance—can support a hostile work environment claim.

Ferdous alleged a sustained campaign of sexualized comments, coercion, threats, and retaliatory behavior. Notably, this occurred in the context of complete dependency—professionally, financially, and residentially.

Notably, under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL, the standard for workplace harassment no longer requires that conduct be “severe or pervasive.” The revised NYSHRL now protects against any conduct that subjects an individual to inferior conditions of employment based on a protected characteristic. The NYCHRL is even broader, prohibiting treatment that renders an employee “less well” because of sex or gender. The allegations, taken together, meet this threshold.

V. Dismissed Claims: Why They Failed

A. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Though the conduct was described as emotionally devastating, courts in New York require that IIED claims involve behavior “so outrageous… beyond all possible bounds of decency.” The court found that the alleged offensive misconduct did not meet this extreme legal threshold.

B. Malicious Prosecution

This claim was rejected primarily because the plaintiffs failed to allege a “favorable termination” of the criminal matter—a necessary element under New York law. Without dismissal of charges or an acquittal, the claim fails.

C. Fraud in the Inducement and Breach of Contract

Plaintiffs failed to allege:

• Specific misrepresentations made before entering the lease or employment.

• The terms of the lease or employment agreement were allegedly breached.

• Which defendant made the promises, and when.

These omissions are fatal under New York pleading standards.

D. Unjust Enrichment

The claim was barred as duplicative. Where a contract (employment or lease) governs the subject matter, a plaintiff cannot pursue quasi-contractual remedies unless the contract is unenforceable or void.

E. Real Property Law § 235-d

Although the plaintiffs cited New York’s landlord harassment statute, the court declined to allow the claim to proceed. Whether due to insufficient pleading or inapplicability to non-multiple dwellings, the decision was not elaborated.

VI. Structural Abuse: When Employment and Housing Intersect

What makes Ferdous legally and morally significant is its illustration of structural coercion through dual dependency. By occupying the roles of employer and landlord simultaneously, the Hasans allegedly created a closed system in which the plaintiffs were subject to constant monitoring, manipulation, and fear of reprisal.

Such conditions disproportionately impact immigrant workers, undocumented employees, and those with limited language access. The courts have acknowledged that power dynamics matter, especially when victims cannot seek help without risking housing, income, or family stability.

Had the plaintiffs’ claims been brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, they likely would have faced two significant obstacles. First, Title VII only applies to employers with 15 or more employees, a threshold the defendants in Ferdous v. Hasan—owners of a small medical and dental clinic—likely did not meet. Second, until the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, federal courts required plaintiffs to show that the discriminatory conduct amounted to a “significant” or “material” adverse employment action, often excluding cases involving lateral transfers or intangible harms.

In Muldrow, the Court unanimously clarified that Title VII requires only that the discrimination cause “some harm” to the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment—not necessarily economic or tangible harm. While this ruling brought Title VII’s standard closer to the protections offered under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), the latter laws do not contain any employee threshold and apply to employers of all sizes.

Thus, while Muldrow was a significant win for civil rights enforcement, plaintiffs like Ferdous—employed by small businesses—must continue to rely on state and local laws like the NYSHRL and NYCHRL, which offer both broader coverage and lower pleading thresholds for harassment and retaliation claims.

VII. Toward Reform: Policy and Legal Implications

This case raises difficult but necessary questions:

• Should employers also be barred from acting as landlords?
  This dual role has been restricted in many jurisdictions due to conflict of interest and coercion risk.

• Should sexual harassment laws explicitly address dual dependencies?
  State legislatures should consider adding provisions recognizing “compound power” as an aggravating factor in civil rights violations.

• Should landlord retaliation statutes be expanded?
  Current housing laws inadequately protect tenants when harassment is psychological, sexual, or procedural rather than purely economic.

• Should legal aid be made more accessible to employees in informal economies?
  Many victims of this kind of abuse never bring claims due to fear of retaliation or lack of counsel.

VIII. Conclusion

Ferdous v. Hasan is about more than just workplace misconduct—it is about the abuse of control through overlapping roles of authority. The Appellate Division’s ruling, while narrowing the plaintiffs’ case, ensures that one of the most urgent allegations—sexual harassment in a power-imbalanced relationship—will be addressed.

As this case proceeds to discovery, the courts will have the opportunity to confront what happens when the institutions designed to heal and shelter become the sites of exploitation.

The law cannot undo harm already done, but it can ensure that silence is not the final verdict. Ferdous reminds us that justice begins not with institutions but with listening—closely, thoughtfully, and structurally.

Read the Decision and Order