In Adeniji v. The City of New York, No. 152761/2022, 2024 WL 4939661 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Nov. 26, 2024), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s race-based hostile work environment claims under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.
From the decision:
Plaintiff opposes this prong of the motion, arguing that he has pled a viable claim. He states that, at minimum, he has alleged a borderline case, with allegations that are not clearly pervasive and severe or petty and trivial. Accordingly, he states that a triable issue of fact exists, precluding dismissal. He points to Alshami v City Univ. of N.Y. (203 AD3d 592, 592-593 [1st Dept 2022]), in which the First Department found that the plaintiff’s allegations about a “coworker’s multiple derogatory remarks about [his national origin], sometimes made in the presence of plaintiff’s supervisors, along with the allegedly unfounded write-ups, unfavorable assignments, and denial of a promotion, were sufficiently severe and pervasive to support” a hostile work environment claim. He also points to Anderson v Edmiston & Co., Inc. (131 AD3d 416, 417 [1st Dept 2015]). Here, he states, the fact that he worked in an atmosphere in which white employees were treated better than minorities is sufficient to allege a viable claim of severe and pervasive hostility.
In reply, defendants state that Alshami and Kwong v City of New York (204 AD3d 442 [1st Dept 2022]), upon which plaintiff relies, are both distinguishable because the hostile work environment claims were based on multiple derogatory comments by the defendants. Additionally, they reiterate their position that most of the comments are not connected to plaintiff’s race or national origin and that Captain Harlet’s comment, by itself, does not support plaintiff’s cause of action. They rely on Model Serv., LLC v MC2 Models Mgmt., LLC (2015 NY Slip Op 32454 [U], *3 [Sup Ct, NY County 2015]) in support of their position that plaintiff’s latest allegation — that plaintiff worked in an atmosphere in which he was treated worse than his white counterparts — is too conclusory to survive their motion to dismiss.
To allege a viable claim for hostile work environment under the SHRL, the plaintiff must show that “the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the plaintiff’s working conditions and create an abusive working environment” (Ruiz v Armstrong, 2024 NY Slip Op 24054, *7-8 [Sup Ct, Kings County 2024] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). Further, plaintiff must allege that a reasonable employee would find that the harassment negatively impacted the conditions of employment (id., *8). Here, this court finds that, taken together, the comments directed toward plaintiff are sufficient to support his claim of a hostile work environment under State law.
Similarly, under the more liberal standard that governs the CHRL and in consideration of the preliminary stage of the litigation, this court also finds that plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to support a hostile work environment claim under City law. See Campbell v New York City Dept. of Educ., 200 AD3d 488, 489 [1st Dept 2021] (finding that plaintiff stated a viable claim under the more liberal City law because she alleged that there had been a few comments about her race, that she had received several write-ups, and that she had been transferred from her unit). More specifically, the court concluded that, collectively, the allegations “could support plaintiff’s allegation that she was treated ‘less well,’ at least in part due to discriminatory reasons” (id.). Here, too, plaintiff’s complaint alleges a history of alleged maltreatment and denied opportunities.
The court further held, on the same basis, that plaintiff pled a viable claim of constructive termination.