In Kulick v. Gordon Property Group, LLC et al, 23 Civ. 9928 (KPF), 2025 WL 448333 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2025), the court, inter alia, held that plaintiff sufficiently alleged sex-based discrimination claims asserted under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.
From the decision:
The Court has analyzed Plaintiff’s NYSHRL and NYCHRL discrimination allegations. It finds that Plaintiff plausibly alleges discrimination under the NYSHRL (Count IV) as to GPG, but not as to Borteck or Hirsch. Similarly, the Court finds that Plaintiff plausibly alleges discrimination under the NYCHRL (Count VII) as to GPG and Borteck, but not as to Hirsch.
The Court first determines that the more liberal, post-amendment standard applies to Plaintiff’s NYSHRL claims. Plaintiff joined GPG around May 2019. (See AC ¶ 20). Some of the allegedly discriminatory conduct took place in June 2019, before the October 11, 2019 cutoff date. (See id. ¶ 22). But the rest of the allegedly discriminatory conduct took place after the cutoff date. Though Plaintiff alleges that Borteck “started asking [Plaintiff]” to search through his emails “[b]eginning in or about June 2019” (id. ¶ 23 (emphasis added)), the allegations are that this conduct occurred “on a regular basis” and thus continued through October 2019 and beyond (see ¶¶ 23-28). The rest of the alleged conduct either occurred on specified dates after October 11, 2019, or on an unspecified date. For example, Plaintiff alleges that Borteck “would ask” Plaintiff about her appearance and weight. (Id. ¶ 40). When, as here, the complaint is ambiguous as to when the conduct took place, the Court applies the post-amendment NYSHRL standard so as to construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Syeed, 568 F. Supp. 3d at 343-44.
Under this standard, Plaintiff’s discrimination claims under both the NYSHRL (Count IV) and the NYCHRL (Count VII) as to GPG survive because she has sufficiently alleged that she has been treated less well at least in part because of her gender. See Delo, 685 F. Supp. 3d at 183. Plaintiff’s allegations that Borteck made her uncomfortable by, for example, referring to another female employee by gender-stereotypical nicknames in her presence (AC ¶¶ 34-35) and insulting her weight and appearance (id. ¶ 40) are sufficient. These comments objectify women and were made in circumstances where they would signal views about the role of women in the workplace. See Nezaj, 719 F. Supp. 3d at 331 (citing Williams, 872 N.Y.S.2d at 41 n.30); see also Mihalik, 715 F.3d at 114.
Based on this, the court held that plaintiff sufficiently alleged that she was treated less well because of her gender.