NYCHRL Disability Discrimination Claim Survives Dismissal; Denial of Overtime, Promotion Was Sufficiently Disadvantageous

In Khurana v. City of New York, No. 152921/2024, 2025 WL 1085410 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Apr. 10, 2025), the court, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim of disability discrimination under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL).

From the decision:

To state a claim of disability discrimination under the NYCHRL, plaintiff must allege that: (1) she is a member of a protected class, (2) she was qualified for her position, (3) she was adversely or differently treated based on her disability in a way that disadvantaged her and (4) this action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination (Hosking v Mem. Sloan-Kettering Cancer Ctr., 186 AD3d 58 [1st Dept 2020]).

Defendants argue that plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action for disability discrimination because she failed to plead that she suffered an adverse employment action. As a preliminary matter, defendants state the incorrect standard to state a claim of disability discrimination under the NYCHRL as the standard they cite from Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, states the standard for a claim brought under the New York State Human Rights Law and the claims here are asserted under the NYCHRL (3 NY3d 295 [2004]). While the standards are similar, “[u]nder the City HRL … rather than an adverse action, the plaintiff must show only that the defendant took an action that disadvantaged him or her” (Hosking v Mem. Sloan-Kettering Cancer Ctr., 186 AD3d 58, 61-62 [1st Dept 2020]). Here, plaintiff has adequately plead that she was disabled, or perceived as disabled, was qualified for the position, and was denied benefits such as overtime, and promotion due to her perceived disability, a disadvantage to her. Accordingly, plaintiff’s claims will not be dismissed on these grounds.

Accordingly, this decision is instructive as to the subtle, yet crucial, distinction between the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.

The court likewise held that plaintiff sufficiently alleged hostile work environment and failure to accommodate disability.

Share This: