In Alkins v. City of New York, No. 160778/2021, 2022 WL 17811985, 2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 34284(U) (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Dec. 19, 2022), the court, inter alia, held that plaintiff sufficiently alleged claims for race discrimination under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.
From the decision:
The Amended Complaint alleges Defendants denied Alkins, Soljour, and Joseph work from home privileges in 2020 but allowed white employees to work from home in the same period. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants forced Alkins to share a vehicle with COVID-exposed coworkers in August and September 2020. Additionally, Ashterman was allegedly denied a promotion to Supervisor of Investigation in 2018 and Defendants instead promoted a “white Hispanic woman with fewer qualifications”. Defendants assert Plaintiffs have failed to plead facts sufficient to allege that they suffered adverse employment actions or facts that lead to an inference of discrimination.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs state a cause of action for racial discrimination under the NYSHRL. It is undisputed that Plaintiffs are members of a protected class, and Plaintiffs sufficiently plead that they are qualified for their current and former positions and the positions to which they allegedly applied for promotions. Defendants’ denial of requests to work from home during the COVID-19 pandemic as set forth in the Complaint is a materially adverse change to conditions of their employment because the risk to their health and safety amounted to more than a “mere inconvenience”. The allegation that white employees were granted work from home privileges during the same period is sufficient to give rise to an inference of discrimination. Defendant’s denial of a promotion in 2018 is also a materially adverse change from which an inference of discrimination can be drawn. Because Plaintiffs have stated a cause of action for racial discrimination under the NYSHRL, the Court finds that they have stated a claim under the broader NYCHRL.
[Cleaned up.]
The court additionally, inter alia, held that plaintiffs sufficiently alleged claims of disability discrimination under those statutes.