In Keenan v. Bloomberg, LP, No. 155679/2024, 2025 WL 675170 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Mar. 03, 2025), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s age- and sex-based discrimination and hostile work environment, and retaliation, claims under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.
From the decision:
Both the NYSHRL and NYCHRL require that their provisions be “construed liberally” to accomplish the remedial purposes of prohibiting discrimination (NYSHRL § 300; NYCHRL § 8-130; Albunio v City of New York, 16 NY3d 472, 477-478 [2011]; Matter of Binghamton GHS Ernpls. Fed. Credit Union v State Div. of Human Rights, 77 NY2d 12, 18 [1990]). On a motion to dismiss, “employment discrimination cases are [] generally reviewed under notice pleading standards[;] a plaintiff alleging employment discrimination ‘need not plead [specific facts establishing] a prima facie case of discrimination’ but need only give ‘fair notice’ of the nature of the claim and its grounds” (Vig v New York Hairspray Co., LP, 67 AD3d 140, 145 [1st Dept 2009] [internal citation omitted]).
Plaintiff alleges that she was a member of two protected classes, based on her sex and age; she was qualified for her position, having 25 years of experience as a news anchor for defendant; she was subject to various adverse employment actions and treated differently from other employees (e.g., as compared to younger and male employees, plaintiff was paid less, given less favorable assignments, scheduled for late-night shifts, and not given appropriate equipment for remote work); and a discriminatory animus can be inferred (see generally, NYSCEF Doc No 1). Plaintiff also alleges that, after making clear complaints about the perceived discriminatory conduct, the work environment became increasingly more hostile, culminating in her termination (id.).
At this stage, “it cannot be said, as a matter of law, that the facts alleged by plaintiff, if proven, would not constitute discrimination, retaliation and a hostile work environment in violation of the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws” (Ferraro, 115 AD3d at 497). Rather, “[c]rediting plaintiff’s allegations for the purpose of this pre-answer, pre-discovery motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) and (7),” the complaint is “sufficient to give defendant [] ‘fair notice’ of the nature of plaintiff’s claims and their grounds” (Petit, 177 AD3d at 403).
Accordingly, the court determined that plaintiff’s discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation claims will not be dismissed for failure to state a claim.