In Choudhury v. Northwell Health, Inc., 23-cv-01406 (NCM) (SIL), 2025 WL 2300220 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2025), the court, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claims of race, religion, and national origin based hostile work environment asserted under the New York State Human Rights Law. Notably, the court initially granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This decision thus illustrates the manner in which courts apply the comparatively broader state law, relative to federal law.
From the decision:
Next, the Court considers whether the conduct that occurred after October 11, 2019 is sufficient to raise a plausible inference of a hostile work environment under the amended NYSHRL. As discussed above, a plaintiff bringing a hostile work environment claim under the NYSHRL no longer needs to show that the harassment complained of was “severe or pervasive,” but must only show that the plaintiff was “treated less well” because of his protected characteristics. Smith v. Nat’l Grid USA, No. 2:21-cv-06899, 2025 WL 1248676, at *10–11 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2025). To be entitled to summary judgment on a hostile work environment claim, a defendant must show that the conduct “amounted to nothing more than what a reasonable victim of discrimination would consider petty slights and trivial inconveniences.” Suri v. Grey Glob. Grp., Inc., 164 A.D.3d 108, 114 (1st Dep’t 2018) (applying the NYCHRL).
The conduct of which plaintiff complains, and which is considered under the NYSHRL’s amended standard, include plaintiff’s 2019, 2020, and 2021 performance reviews all submitted by Bergen, a September 2020 written warning from Bergen, a December 2020 final written warning by Bergen, and Hynes’s placement of plaintiff on a PIP. See Opp’n 28 (referencing plaintiff’s “unfair discipline and negative performance reviews” between “2019 and 2022 when Plaintiff was ultimately terminated”). Plaintiff claims that Bergen made a comment in either 2019 or 2020 that people from plaintiff’s background were not always as smart as plaintiff or easy to work with. HR Confidential Complaint 15:33–17:48. Plaintiff also claimed that his team was frequently understaffed and underresourced because Bergen would stall approving plaintiff’s requests, while approving Hynes’s requests within a few days. Plaintiff’s Additional Statements of Fact ¶ 20, ECF No. 43-1. Lastly, plaintiff claimed that Hynes and others scheduled meetings during his Friday afternoon prayers and would not move the meetings after plaintiff stated that the meeting time conflicted with his religious observance. Pl. Dep. Tr. Day Two 44:2–5. Plaintiff testified that he was forced to miss “4, 5 of [his] prayer sessions … because [Hynes] wanted [plaintiff] to join some calls.” Pl. Dep. Tr. Day Two 44:2–5.
This conduct, considered under the totality of the circumstances, is sufficient to create a question of fact as to whether plaintiff was treated less well because of his protected characteristics. Negative performance reviews and discipline, by themselves, are insufficient to support a hostile work environment claim. Nevertheless, as plaintiff has presented evidence of offensive comments referencing plaintiff’s protected characteristics, plaintiff has created a question as to whether Bergen’s evaluations of plaintiff and the decisions to discipline plaintiff were motivated by discriminatory animus. See Suri v. Grey Glob. Grp., Inc., 83 N.Y.S.3d 9, 13 n.10 (1st Dep’t 2018) (applying the NYCHRL and finding that harsh criticism and professional exclusion could support a hostile work environment claim when presented in connection with a sexual overture); see also Ruiz v. Credit Agricole Corp. & Inv. Bank, No. 22-cv-10777, 2025 WL 1642406, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. June 10, 2025) (finding that potentially race-related related allegations were sufficient to suggest that defendant’s criticism of plaintiff was “at least in part racially motivated” in “the more relaxed NYCHRL context”).
Based on this, the court held that “the evidence offered by plaintiff is sufficient to raise a question of whether plaintiff was impermissibly treated ‘less well’ than other employees because of his race, religion, or national origin,” warranting denial of defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim under the NYSHRL.