In Swinburne v. City of New York, No. 153793/2024, 2025 WL 990587 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Mar. 28, 2025), the court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s retaliation claim asserted under the New York City Human Rights Law.
From the decision:
Under [NYCHRL], it is unlawful to retaliate against an employee for opposing discriminatory practices.” Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 N.Y.3d 295, 312 (2004). To maintain a claim for retaliation under NYCHRL, a plaintiff must show: (1) they engaged in protected activity by opposing conduct prohibited thereunder, (2) the defendant was aware of the plaintiff’s participation in the activity, (3) the plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action based upon the activity, and (4) a causal connection existed between the protected activity and the adverse action.
In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges he engaged in a “protected activity when he applied for a reasonable accommodation to not take the COVID-19 due to his health status and disability”. (NYSCEF Doc. 1 pgs. 8) He alleges that the “request for [an] accommodation was well known throughout the Police Action Litigation Section” when he was transferred from the NYPD Legal Bureau. (Id.) He alleges further that because of the transfer, he suffered a “demotion to regular patrol [which] resulted in pain to his neck and back, denial of overtime [and a reduction in] earning $15,000 to 25,000 less a year, repeated harassment including poor performance evaluations and no longer being able to use his legal skills at work”. (NYSCEF Doc. 1 pgs. 14-18).
The City contends that Plaintiff’s claim must be dismissed because “there is simply no causal connection between his request for a reasonable accommodation and the alleged adverse actions.” (NYSCEF Doc. 3 pg. 11). The City argues specifically that Plaintiff did not “provide specific dates or supporting details indicating that such actions were in response to his request….and more than three years elapsed between the reasonable accommodation request and the alleged adverse actions.” (NYSCEF Doc. 3 pgs. 11-12).
This Court finds that Plaintiff’s alleged request for a medical accommodation and exemption from the vaccine mandate because of his disability was a protected activity of which The City was aware. This Court also finds Plaintiff’s representation that — following his accommodation request, he was transferred from the NYPD Legal Bureau under false pretenses and received diminished pay — sufficiently alleges an adverse action and casual connection thereto. Furthermore, this Court is required to accept Plaintiff’s allegations as true and as a result, he sufficiently pled a cognizable claim for retaliation. Shui Kam Chan v Louis, 303 AD2d 151, *3 (1st Dept 2003) (When considering a “motion to dismiss a complaint, [pursuant to CPLR § 3211(a)(7)] an appellate court must accept all of the factual allegations in the complaint as true and draw all inferences favorably to a plaintiff”).
The court further found that the NYCHRL’s strict liability provision, NYC Administrative Code § 8-107(13)(b), applied, since defendant Mulle “was the supervisor in his unit, his request was well known throughout the unit, and he alleges that he had direct conversations with her regarding same” and the NYCHRL ““provides liability for individual employees for discrimination when those employees have some supervisory role over the victim.”