In Nurbolatova v. Universal Enterprise LLC, No. 500919/2022, 2025 WL 1930217, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 32497(U) (N.Y. Sup Ct, Kings County July 10, 2025), the court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s employment discrimination claims asserted under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.
From the decision:
A plaintiff alleging discrimination in violation of NYSHRL must establish that (1) he or she is a member of a protected class. (2) he or she was qualified to hold the position, (3) he or she suffered an adverse employment action, and (4) the adverse action occurred under circumstances given rise to an inference of discrimination.
To prevail on a summary judgment motion in an action alleging discrimination in violation of NYSHRL, a defendant must demonstrate either the plaintiff’s failure to establish every element of intentional discrimination or, having offered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the challenged actions, the absence of triable issues of fact as to whether the explanations were pretextual.
In the instant case. Plaintiff began working as an accountant for Universal in January of 2021 and learned of her pregnancy in or around June of 2021. Plaintiff stated that, while at work, she wore an oversized hoodie to hide her stomach. According to Plaintiff, on the day of her termination, she wore a shirt that made her pregnant stomach clearly visible. Plaintiff alleges that although no one asked whether she was pregnant, her wearing the shirt showed her stomach, which placed Defendants on notice, and led to her unlawful termination. According to Plaintiff, prior to the date of her termination, no one at work was aware of her pregnancy.
Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s termination was a result of the continuous errors she made in her work. In support of their assertions Defendants provided documentary evidence of the errors Plaintiff made while employed at Universal.
As examples of the errors made by Plaintiff in her work assignments, Defendants presented an e-mail chain in which Plaintiff requested clarity on a job task. In response, Plaintiff was directed to Defendant Nadine Baez (hereinafter “Baez”), a manager at Universal, to find out why the task was being done improperly. On April 29, 2021, an e-mail was sent to Defendant Baez and Plaintiff which addressed postdated checks that were deposited in error. The e-mail was forwarded to Elizabeth DeVito, who referred to the depositing of the post-dated checks as “unacceptable” and inquired “how many strikes is that”? In response. Defendant Baez replied “6.5”. Then on June 22, 2021, Plaintiff was told by Defendant Baez that she made a “big mistake” on the June bill, and that “it cannot happen again” (NYSCEF Doc. No.: 47). On July 1, 2021, Defendants assert that Plaintiff made an error in providing the totaled amount of ten checks to Defendant Baez.
Next, Defendants assert that, the determination to terminate Plaintiff was made on Friday, October 1, 2021, not on Monday, October 4, 2021, when Plaintiff arrived to work without her hoodie. To support their assertion, Defendants proffered an “Accounting AD” e-mail that was sent by Defendant Baez. on Friday. October 1, 2021, at 2:32 p.m. for an Accountant Position. The e-mail included the job title, qualifications, and a job description which mirrored the responsibilities performed by Plaintiff.
After careful due consideration of the papers filed in this case, this Court finds that Defendant has demonstrated Plaintiffs failure to establish every element of intentional discrimination. This Court also finds that Defendants have offered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the termination of Plaintiff. Accordingly, this Court finds that the decision to terminate Plaintiff was not discriminatory. This Court also finds that there are no triable issues as to whether the decision to terminate was pretextual.
[Cleaned up.]
This decision illustrates the hurdles faced by plaintiffs asserting claims of unlawful discrimination, even under the comparatively broad New York City Human Rights Law.