In Gugliucciello v. City of New York, No. 156669/2022, 2023 WL 6622742 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Oct. 11, 2023), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s gender-based hostile work environment claims.
From the decision:
Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims is also denied. Under the NYSHRL, a “hostile work environment exists ‘[w]hen the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment” (Hunter v Barnes & Noble, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 30638[U], 8-9 [Sup Ct, NY County 2023] [internal citations and quotations omitted]). To state a hostile work environment claim under the NYCHRL, however, plaintiff need only allege facts showing that “she has been treated less well than other employees because of her protected status or that discrimination was one of the motivating factors for the defendant’s conduct” (Chin v. New York City Hous. Auth., 106 AD3d 443, 445 [1st Dept 2013] citing Williams v NYCHA, 61 AD3d at 75-78 [2013]).
Plaintiff has satisfied both standards through her allegations that disparaging and misogynistic comments were regularly directed toward her–sometimes in the presence of NYPD supervisors–along with allegedly unfounded discipline, unfavorable assignments, and the denial of promotional opportunities (See Alshami v City Univ. of New York, 203 AD3d 592 [1st Dept 2022]; see also Demir v Sandoz Inc., 155 AD3d 464, 466 [1st Dept 2017]; Anderson v Edmiston & Co., Inc., 131 AD3d 416, 417 [1st Dept 2015] [“Plaintiff has also adequately alleged a claim for hostile work environment by alleging that her supervisor routinely made deprecatory, vulgar, and offensive remarks about women”]).
Among plaintiff’s allegations were that she was “forced to listen” to defendant refer to her as a “cunt” and as “fat” and “sloppy.”