MOSCOW, October 30 (RAPSI) – A New York federal district judge rejected a motion filed by The New York Post and its Editor in Chief Col Allan for summary judgment in an employment discrimination claim filed by former employee Sandra Guzman on the basis of her sex, race, and national origin, according to court documents filed Monday.

Guzman was identified in Monday’s decision as a “black, Hispanic, Puerto Rican female,” who had served as an associate editor for The Post from July 2003 through late September 2009. In addition to Allan and The Post, Guzman initially listed News Corporation and NYP Holidings, Inc. as defendants in the case.

At the same time, the judge granted a motion for summary judgment submitted by News Corporation, while dismissing the motion for summary judgment submitted by The Post and Allan.

Guzman’s complaint asserts: “Known for its often sensational headlines, the New York Post is one of the largest newspapers in the [US], and is read by people all over the world. However, behind the trumpeted headlines and within the four walls of the Post exists a hostile work environment where female employees and employees of color have been subjected to pervasive and systemic discrimination and/or unlawful harassment based on their gender, race, color and/or national origin.”

Monday’s decision describes various elements of the allegedly “racially and sexually hostile work environment” described by Guzman, who complained of sexually charged conversations in the newsroom, an incident where a Latino baseball player was equated with a criminal when Allan allegedly asked if the athlete had brought with him to an interview “a gun or a machete,” and a situation where the paper’s Broadway columnist “regularly greeted Ms. Guzman by singing, ‘I want to live in America,’ from West Side Story with a Spanish accent.”

According to the decision, Guzman further alleged that an administrative editor had inquired as to whether the candles in her offices were used for purposes of Santeria or Voodoo. The plaintiff complained that a photography editor had hired a staff populated by young, pretty women, which he regularly referred to as his harem.

In January 2009, Guzman approached a Post stylist in an effort to borrow samples from designers that she could use while attending events surrounding the inauguration of US President Barrack Obama, which, according to the decision, she would cover for professional purposes.

Shortly thereafter, a Manolo Blahnik representative contacted The Post, complaining that the stylist had “pitch[ed] a hissy-fit” after having been denied free shoes.

Guzman then received a warning later the same month asserting that she displayed “extremely poor judgment” and violated internal rules by attempting to use a stylist for her personal benefit.

The following month, The Post published a political cartoon that – according to the decision – many people believed analogized President Obama to an ape. As described in the decision: “On February 18, 2009, the Post published a political cartoon depicting a dead chimpanzee having been shot by two police officers, one of whom remarks: ‘They’ll have to find someone else to write the next Stimulus Bill.’”

The decision goes on to explain that while Chairman of The Post and News Corp Rupert Murdoch issued an apology for the cartoon’s publication, Allan has maintained that the chimpanzee was meant to symbolize the US Congress, and denies racism and impropriety.

When the cartoon was published, Guzman claims to have spoken with a human resources officer, airing her complaints about the general atmosphere at the new outlet – the allegations of sexual harassment and West Side Story songs, and so on. The human resources officer in turn claimed that the conversation was limited to the topic of the cartoon.

In September 2009, Guzman’s position was eliminated when the section she worked for was suspended due to a lack of profitability, according to the judgment.

The court noted that a motion for summary judgment can only be granted when all submissions taken together show that there is no genuine dispute regarding material fact, and the moving party is entitle to a judgment under the law.

News Corp.’s motion for summary judgment had argued that Guzman’s complaints should fail because it did not employ Guzman, and thus could not be held liable as her employer. The court granted News Corp’s motion.

The motion for summary judgment submitted by The Post and Allan asserted that Guxman’s claims of harassment, discrimination, and retaliation should fail as a matter of law.

The court denied this motion.

An accompanying document filed Tuesday stated that the trial shall commence in January 2014.