In Lent v. The City of New York, et al., No. 1642 2, 2021-04616, 2022 WL 7177790 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept., Oct. 13, 2022), the court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s age discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation claims.
As to plaintiff’s discrimination claims, the court explained:
The court properly dismissed plaintiff’s age discrimination claim under the New York State Human Rights Law (Executive Law § 296), as plaintiff failed to allege an adverse employment action (see Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d 295, 306 [2004] ). Nothing in the complaint indicated that his suspension and placement on modified duty were for any reason other than disciplinary actions taken after his arrest for domestic violence (see Riddick v. City of New York, 4 AD3d 242, 246 [1st Dept 2004] ). The alleged acts of investigations into various misconduct by plaintiff and transfers to other precincts did not rise to the level of actionable adverse employment actions (see Messinger v. Girl Scouts of U.S.A., 16 AD3d 314, 315 [1st Dept 2005] ).
As to the discrimination claim under the New York City Human Rights Law (Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § 8–107), the conduct of which plaintiff complained amounted to no more than “petty slights and trivial inconveniences” (Williams v. New York City Hous. Auth., 61 AD3d 62, 80 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 702 [2009] ). The alleged stray remark by defendant MacDonald that plaintiff was “old enough to retire” did not, without more, give rise to an inference of ageist bias (see Pelepelin v. City of New York, 189 AD3d 450, 451 [1st Dept 2020]; Fruchtman v. City of New York, 129 AD3d 500, 501 [1st Dept 2015]; see also Moore v. Verizon, 2016 WL 825001, *8–9, 2016 U.S. Dist LEXIS 16201, *23–24 [SD NY, Feb. 5, 2016, No. 13–CV–6467 (RJS) ] ). Plaintiff’s bare allegations that younger officers who had committed misconduct did not receive unfavorable assignments were too general to support an inference of age discrimination (see Pelepelin, 189 AD3d at 451; Massaro v Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 121 AD3d 569, 570 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 26 NY3d 903 [2015] ).
The court also affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims (since plaintiff “failed to allege discriminatory animus”), as well as his retaliation claims (on the ground that ” retaliation claim, as plaintiff’s “general complaints of mistreatment and harassment did not convey that he had complained of unlawful discrimination”).