In Longchamp v. Equinox Holdings Co., Inc., No. 153431/2021, 2024 WL 4041714 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Sep. 04, 2024), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claims of gender and sexual orientation-based hostile work environment under the New York City Human Rights Law.
This case is a good example of the difference between the New York State Human Rights Law and the comparatively broader New York City Human Rights Law.
From the decision:
While “the complained-of incidents do not rise to the level of ‘severe and pervasive’ for purposes of a claim pursuant to the State HRL, this does not dispose of the question whether plaintiff[‘s] City HRL claim is still viable” (Hernandez, 103 AD3d at 114; Pichardo v Carmine’s Broadway Feast Inc., 199 AD3d 593, 594 [1st Dept 2021] [“although the motion court properly concluded that it does not rise to the level of ‘severe and pervasive’ under the applicable [] State HRL, plaintiff has raised triable issues of fact regarding the hostile work environment claims under the more protective City HRL”]). “[T]he City HRL’s ‘uniquely broad and remedial’ purposes, which go beyond those of counterpart state [] civil rights laws,” prohibits conduct beyond “what a reasonable victim of discrimination would consider ‘petty slights and trivial inconveniences’ ” (Williams, 61 AD3d at 66, 80). As such, this claim can only be dismissed if it is “determine[d] that this is a truly insubstantial case in which defendant’s behavior cannot be said to fall within the broad range of conduct that falls between ‘severe and pervasive’ on the one hand and a ‘petty slight or trivial inconvenience’ on the other” (Hernandez, 103 AD3d at 114-15 [internal quotations omitted]). Here, plaintiff has alleged that Gecht made multiple offensive and suggestive comments based on his gender and sexual orientation, some of which occurred in front of their coworkers, which caused him distress and embarrassment (see NYSCEF Doc No 1 ¶¶ 24-33, 40-42, 44-49; NYSCEF Doc No 117 [coworker saw plaintiff’s “face color drain” when Gecht made pride event comment]). “Because, at the very least, defendant’s conduct can be characterized as having subjected plaintiff[] to ‘differential treatment,’ the broad remedial purposes of the City HRL would be countermanded by dismissal of the claim” (id. at 115; Golston-Green v City of New York, 184 AD3d 24, 29 [2nd Dept 2020] [under the NYCHRL, a plaintiff merely needs to demonstrate that “he was subject to an unfavorable change or treated less well than other employees on the basis of a protected characteristic”]).
Based on this, the court denied that part of defendant’s summary judgment motion seeking dismissal of plaintiff’s cause of action pursuant to NYCHRL § 8-107(1)(a).