In Samuel v. Institute for Community Living, Inc., No. 150885/2024, 2025 WL 1180332 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Apr. 22, 2025), the court, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s employment discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation claims.
The court summarized the facts as follows:
Plaintiff alleges she always performed her work satisfactorily and always had a good working relationships with managers and colleagues until mid-2020, when Ortiz, a younger woman, became her manager. According to Plaintiff, Ortiz repeatedly made demeaning and age biased remarks to Plaintiff and showed favoritism to younger colleagues. Plaintiff alleges that Ortiz and Felder consistently called her an “Old B***h,” “fat loser” and “piece of crap” daily. Ortiz also allegedly said loudly, in front of Plaintiff “these old staff need to retire so I can bring in my team” and that she “needed to get rid of people that have been here too long.” From May 2020 until her alleged constructive discharge on February 8, 2021, Ortiz allegedly made Plaintiff move her office on the second floor to a small space downstairs on the first floor, without a desk, where Community Living Inc. residents slept, and directly next to bathrooms. On February 8, 2021, Felder allegedly berated Plaintiff and kicked her leg. That day, Plaintiff left Community Living, and immediately thereafter Felder was promoted to Plaintiff’s prior position. [Paragraphing Altered.]
From the decision:
Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint on the basis she has failed to state a claim for age discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, and aiding and abetting is denied. When reviewing a pre-answer motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the Court must give Plaintiff the benefit of all favorable inferences which may be drawn from the pleadings and determine only whether the alleged facts fit within any cognizable legal theory (Sassi v Mobile Life Support Services, Inc., 37 NY3d 236, 239 [2021]. All factual allegations must be accepted as true (Allianz Underwriters Ins. Co. v Landmark Ins. Co., 13 AD3d 172, 174 [1st Dept 2004]).
Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff can point to no age-related comments giving rise to an inference of age-related discrimination is without merit. The Complaint is replete with comments evincing age-related animus. Moreover, despite working for Community Living, Inc. for over 20 years, she had her office space taken away and was taunted by colleagues for having to work near the bathroom. She further alleges younger staff were treated with favoritism, another similarly situated employee to her was also forced to retire, and once Plaintiff was constructively discharged, her position was replaced with a younger employee.
Moreover, the retaliation claims are sufficiently stated as Plaintiff alleges, she complained to human resources on multiple occasions to no avail, and rather than offering Plaintiff lawful and helpful solutions, she was instead encouraged to retire. When she tried to receive unemployment benefits, Community Living Inc. allegedly objected, claiming Plaintiff voluntarily separated – however an Administrative Law Judge found that based on the harassment Plaintiff faced, her employment ended under “non-disqualifying conditions.” For purposes of a pre-answer motion to dismiss these allegations are sufficient to state claims for age discrimination, hostile work-environment, retaliation, and aiding and abetting under the New York State and City Human Rights laws
The court did, however, grant defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s negligent infliction of emotional distress claim, noting that plaintiff abandoned this claim by failing to oppose dismissal of this claim in her motion papers.