In Dassie v. Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP, No. 160227/2023, 2025 WL 2224323 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Aug. 05, 2025), the court, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims asserted under the New York City Human Rights Law.
From the decision:
A hostile work environment violates the NYCHRL where an employee “has been treated less well than other employees because of [his/her] protected status.” (Chin v New York City Hous. Auth., 106 AD3d 443, 445 [1st Dept 2013]; see also Golston-Green v City of New York, 184 AD3d 24, 40-41[2d Dept 2020] [“Another way in which a plaintiff may establish discrimination in the terms, conditions, and privileges or employment is by showing that she or he was subject to a hostile work environment”] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]).
Despite the broader application of the NYCHRL, conduct that consists of “petty slights or trivial inconveniences . . . do[es] not suffice to support a hostile work environment claim” (Buchwald v Silverman Shin & Byrne PLLC, 149 AD3d 560, 560 [1st Dept 2017] [citation omitted]). Nonetheless, “[c]ourts must be mindful that the NYCHRL is not a general civility code and that the plaintiff still bears the burden of showing that the conduct is caused by a discriminatory motive” (Id. at 110 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]).
As plaintiff has not shown any animus toward him based on his race or national origin, his hostile work environment claim may not be maintained
This decision thus teaches that, despite the breadth of the NYC Human Rights Law, the plaintiff still must demonstrate a link between the alleged hostility, on the one hand, to their membership in a protected class, on the other.