In Medrano v. The City University of New York, No. 162199/2023, 2025 WL 1085294, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 31267(U), 4–5 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Apr. 03, 2025), the court, inter alia, dismissed plaintiff’s claim of national origin discrimination claim.
From the decision:
Plaintiff alleges she is of Iranian nationality, qualified for her position, suffered the same adverse employment action of denial of her accommodation as mentioned above in sex/gender but instead herein it was due to “Pacheco’s discriminatory animus towards persons of Iranian nationality.” Plt. Memo of Law in Opp p. 16. To support Plaintiff’s assertion as to Pacheco and his position towards Plaintiff’s nationality, she points to a single statement he made to her about “visiting a slaughterhouse simply because Plaintiff is an immigrant from the Middle East.” Plt. Memo of Law in Opp p. 16.
Defendant argues, “Plaintiff’s discrimination…claims [are] all depend[ent] on the same adverse employment action – the alleged denial of a reasonable accommodation… [and] the discrimination… claims should fall as failure to accommodate is dismissed.” Def. Memo of Law in Sup. p. 7. Additionally, Defendant argues further that the “two stray remarks… unconnected with any alleged adverse action and which do not even show bias against women are insufficient to state a cause of action for gender discrimination.” Def. Memo of Law in Sup. p. 9. Defendant also maintains that Plaintiff’s alleged nationality remark “makes no reference to national origin [and] evinces no hostility toward either Iranians or Muslims… [as] there is nothing wrong with…being identified… as such… and Plaintiff provides no context suggesting that Pacheco held any animus toward Iranians or Muslims.” Def. Memo of Law in Sup. pp. 9-10.
This Court finds the element of adverse employment action is not met in accordance with the finding above. Additionally, the Court finds the two stand-alone comments identified by Plaintiff are insufficient to give rise to the inference of gender discrimination without more. Lent v City of New York, 209 AD3d 494, 495 (1st Dept 2022) (“The alleged stray remark by Defendant MacDonald that Plaintiff was ‘old enough to retire’ did not, without more, give rise to an inference of ageist bias”). Lastly, this Court finds the single comment identified by Plaintiff fails to give rise to an inference of nationality discrimination as there is no established connection. see also Pelepelin v City of NY, 189 AD3d 450, 451 (1st Dept 2020) (The Court found “Plaintiff’s allege[d] ‘derogatory comments’… do not evince any ageist or anti-Russian bias”).
Accordingly, held the court, dismissal of this claim was warranted.