Eckhart v. Fox News

── Eckhart v. Fox News ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: April 24, 2026 Category: General 25-1538 Eckhart v. Fox News UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 24th day of April, two thousand twenty- six. PRESENT: SUSAN L. CARNEY, BETH ROBINSON, MYRNA PÉREZ, Circuit Judges. _________________________________________ JENNIFER ECKHART, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 25-1538 FOX NEWS NETWORK, LLC, Defendant-Appellee, ED HENRY, in his individual capacity and in his professional capacity,  Defendant. * _________________________________________ FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: MICHAEL J. WILLEMIN (Jeanne M. Christensen, Mélodie Han, on the brief), Wigdor LLP, New York, NY. FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: RACHEL S. FISCHER (Keisha-Ann G. Gray, Julia F. Hollreiser, on the brief), Proskauer Rose LLP, New York, NY. Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Abrams, Judge). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment entered on June 16, 2025, is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff Jennifer Eckhart challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant Fox News Network, LLC, with respect to her New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”) and New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”) sexual harassment claims. Eckhart brought this suit against both Fox and a former Fox correspondent, Ed Henry, alleging that Henry sexually harassed and raped her, and that Fox is liable for that conduct. We assume the parties’ * The Clerk’s office is respectfully directed to amend the caption as reflected above. 2 familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and arguments on appeal, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision. 1 We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment without deference. Qorrolli v. Metropolitan Dental Associates, 124 F.4th 115, 122 (2d Cir. 2024). Summary judgment is appropriate only in cases where no genuine dispute of material fact exists and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. “In determining whether there is a genuine dispute as to a material fact, we must resolve all ambiguities and draw all inferences against the moving party.” Garcia v. Hartford Police Department, 706 F.3d 120, 127 (2d Cir. 2013). 2 I. NYCHRL The NYCHRL provides that an “employer shall be liable for an unlawful discriminatory practice based upon the conduct of an employee” only where: (1) The employee . . . exercised managerial or supervisory responsibility; or (2) The employer knew of the employee’s . . . discriminatory conduct, and acquiesced in such conduct or failed to take immediate 1For pur