In Bryant v. the City of New York, No. 161047/2021, 2022 WL 17733056 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Dec. 12, 2022), the court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s discrimination claims under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.
From the decision:
A cause of action invoking protections under both New York State and City HRL requires plaintiff to assert that: (1) he is a member of a protected class, (2) he was qualified for his position, (3) he suffered an adverse employment action, and (4) the adverse action was due to circumstances that could be deemed discriminatory. See Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d 295, 305 (2004). To adequately plead the fourth element of a prima facie claim of employment discrimination pursuant to the City and State HRL, plaintiff must allege a that he “ … was either terminated or treated differently under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination.” Askin v Dept. of Educ. of City of New York, 110 AD3d 621, 622 (1st Dept 2013), citing Melman v Montefiore Med. Ctr., 98 AD3d 107, 113 (1st Dept 2012), Bennett v Health Mgt. Sys., Inc., 92 AD3d 29, 35 (1st Dept 2011).
Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations of discrimination are insufficient to state a claim under the State or City HRL. Although the complaint alleges that plaintiff is a member of a protected class and that he suffered adverse employment actions, plaintiff fails to sufficiently plead a discriminatory animus. Plaintiff does allege examples of “longstanding institutional and structural racial (and athnic), gender, and disability discrimination” and details DOC’s workplace demographics.1 See Complaint, NYSCEF doc. no. 2 at ¶ 12, 34-42. However, plaintiff fails to plead any facts to support an inference of discrimination or to indicate that he himself was treated differently because of his race.
Specifically, the complaint fails to contain any allegations that any of the City’s employees made any comments or references regarding plaintiffs race, nor does the complaint identify any other similarly situated DOC employers outside his protected group who received more favorable treatment. See Whitfield-Ortiz v Dept. of Educ. of City of New York, 116 AD3d 580, 581 (1st Dept 2014).
Based on this, the court held that plaintiff’s discrimination claims were deficient, and therefore that dismissal was warranted.