The Southern District of New York’s recent decision in Hiralall v. Sentosacare, LLC, No. 13 CIV. 4437 (GBD), 2016 WL 1126530 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2016) demonstrates that nepotism – defined here as “favouritism shown to relatives or close friends by those with power or influence” – does not, at least in this case, rise to the level of unlawful discrimination.
Plaintiff (a Guyanese male of Indian descent) asserted that he was subjected to disparate treatment and a hostile work environment based on his national origin and race, and retaliated against because of complaints about such discrimination, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In disposing of plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim, Judge Daniels explained:
Plaintiff also contends that [plaintiff’s superior]’s practice of hiring his relatives, all of Albanian or Montenegrin descent, shows that he discriminated against Guyanese of Indian descent, as well as non-Indians of Guyanese descent who are not Albanian or Montenegrin. Nepotism, in this case, is not evidence of actionable discrimination because showing a preference for one’s family members, to the detriment of several other races or nationalities, does not amount to disparate treatment against a protected class. … Having failed to show a sufficient frequency of events motivated by racial animus towards Plaintiff, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on this claim is GRANTED.