not have a sufficient factual record before it to determine whether the employees who allegedly committed the acts of harassment were Plaintiffs supervisors, as defined in Vance. In particular, the Court cannot determine whether a supervisor was responsible for the Threat Assessment and subsequent surveillance — which was conducted by OCSD Dignitary Protection Team, presented by Investigator Vega, and implemented by unknown individuals at OCSD. Given the complex supervisorial structure of OCSD and the parties’ failure to address the issue of supervisory liability, the Court declines to reach the issue of whether the person or persons responsible for the Threat Assessment had the “authority to make tangible employment decisions” against Montoya. Id.; see McGinest, 360 F.3d at 1119 n. 13 (<HOLDING>). ii. Liability for Coworker Acts Nevertheless,
holding that the question of who was considered a supervisor by gte and whether its job categories suffice to satisfy the demarcations drawn under the case law interpreting title vii is properly resolved by the district court on a more extensive factual record holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination under title vii was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record holding that because plaintiff did not apply for a job he could not be rejected in a title vii case holding that under illinois law interpreting the meaning of a contract is a question of law determined by the court recognizing disagreement among district courts in the second circuit as to whether the standard for vicarious liability is the same under title vii and the nyhrl but interpreting second circuit law including quinn to indicate that nyhrl claims should be analyzed under the framework of title vii