In Huntley v. City of New York, No. 151697/2023, 2024 WL 3070013 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County June 20, 2024), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s constructive discharge claims asserted under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.
From the decision:
The court further finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded a claim for constructive discharge. A constructive discharge claim is when an employee alleges that the employer, rather than directly discharging the individual, has intentionally created an intolerable work atmosphere that forces the employee to quit involuntarily (Whidbee v. Garzarelli Food Specialties, Inc., 223 F.3d 62, 73 [2d Cir. 2000]). Recently, in Bond v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 215 AD3d 469 (1st Dept 2023), the Appellate Division, First Department, found that allegations of a hostile work environment and reduced work assignments raised an issue of fact as to whether defendant “deliberately created working conditions so intolerable, difficult or unpleasant that a reasonable person would have felt compelled to resign” (quoting Polidori v. Societe Generale Groupe, 39 AD3d 404 [1st Dept. 2007]). Here, as set forth above, considering the liberal pleading standards afforded these claims and viewing Plaintiff’s pleadings in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, Plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded that her working conditions were beyond the reasonable person standard set forth above. Plaintiff states that she has been forced to work in an environment which labeled females as lesser than male counterparts directly by the Commanding Officer. She alleges that she was ostracized and humiliated which is sufficient to allege constructive discharge at the pleading stage (see Pugliese v. Actin Biomed LLC, 106 AD3d 591 [1st Dept 2013]). Plaintiff’s constructive discharge is further evidenced in her pleadings by her alleged denial of positions which would have advanced her career, denial of overtime and other benefits of employment which cost Plaintiff as much as $7,500 per month compared to her male peers, denied transfer requests, and retirement before she would have otherwise. Lastly, Plaintiff alleges that the City denied Plaintiff’s accommodation request which forced her to choose between retiring and caring for her children and her sickly father. This denial of accommodation in and of itself is sufficient to constitute a constructive discharge.
Based on this, the court concluded that plaintiff has adequately pleaded constructive discharge.