In Carrasco v. Metropolitan Transit Authority, 2025 WL 1939052 (S.D.N.Y., July 15, 2025), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim of retaliation asserted under the New York Labor Law.
The court summarized, and applied, the law as follows:
A plaintiff alleging retaliation under the NYLL must first show “(1) [plaintiff’s] participation in protected activity known to the defendant, like the filing of a [NYLL] lawsuit; (2) an employment action disadvantaging the plaintiff; and (3) a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.” Williams v. Harry’s Nurses Registry, Inc., No. 24-34-CV, 2025 WL 842041, at *3 (2d Cir. Mar. 18, 2025) (summary order) (on a motion for summary judgment, stating plaintiff’s initial burden for retaliation claims under the NYLL and Fair Labor Standards Act). An employment action disadvantaging a plaintiff is one that “could well dissuade a reasonable worker from engaging in protected activity.” Wilson v. N.Y. & Presbyterian Hosp., No. 21-1971-CV, 2022 WL 17587564, at *2 (2d Cir. Dec. 13, 2022) (summary order). “Causation in a retaliation claim can be shown either directly or through circumstantial evidence, usually when the adverse action followed soon after the protected activity.” Id.
The SAC sufficiently alleges an NYLL Retaliation Act Claim.2 The SAC primarily relies on three formal complaints made by Plaintiff in support of its retaliation claim: (1) Plaintiff’s October 2022 EEOC Charge, (2) Plaintiff’s March 2023 Amended EEOC Charge and (3) the instant action. Each of those actions is a protected activity under the NYLL. See N.Y. Lab. Law § 215(1)(a) (“No employer … shall … discriminate or retaliate against any employee … because such employee has caused to be instituted or is about to institute a proceeding under or related to this chapter.”). The SAC also relies on emails between the parties in early 2023, in which Plaintiff informally complained to Defendants. These informal complaints are also a protected activity under the NYLL Retaliation Act. See Hallett v. Stuart Dean Co., 481 F. Supp. 3d 294, 311 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (“Informal complaints suffice to confer protection against retaliation [under the NYLL Retaliation Act.]”).
The SAC further alleges that, within months of filing those complaints, Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff by excluding her from work communications, isolating her in the workplace in a windowless, rubber room and instituting disciplinary action against her. These acts qualify as adverse employment actions because they “might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting similar charges.” Stevens & Co., LLC v. Tang, No. 23 Civ. 1835, 2024 WL 1157344, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2024); see Benzinger v. Lukoil Pan Americas, LLC, 447 F. Supp. 3d 99, 131 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (holding that reassigning employee to less favorable working conditions constituted retaliatory act that “well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting similar charges”); Wilson, 2022 WL 17587564, at *2 (“[A] hostile work environment may constitute adverse action [under the NYLL Retaliation Act].”). “[A] short period of time passed between [Plaintiff’s] engagement in the protected activity and the alleged adverse actions, suggesting a causal connection between the two.” Stevens & Co., 2024 WL 1157344, at *3; see Frost v. Lentex Co., LLC, No. 20 Civ. 5313, 2022 WL 17968058, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2022) (finding the five-month temporal proximity between plaintiff’s protected activity and defendant’s retaliation sufficient to suggest causal connection).
Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s NYLL Retaliation Act Claim fails because the SAC is “devoid of any plausible allegation that [Plaintiff] complained that Defendants had violated the NYLL or even that she reasonably believed that Defendants had done so.” However, the SAC adequately alleges that Plaintiff’s informal e-mail complaint concerned “a hostile work environment” and being “targeted.” Viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, such issues could be construed as allegations of discrimination in violation of the NYLL. “An employee need not cite a specific statute, but her complaint to the employer must be of a colorable violation of the statute.” Condado v. P&C Pagels, Inc., No. 22 Civ. 01589, 2023 WL 7686701, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2023). Regardless, Plaintiff’s original Complaint in this action identifies specific NYLL provisions Defendants allegedly violated.
Accordingly, held the court, dismissal was not warranted, and these claims shall proceed.