In Clarke v. SOC, LLC, No. 527239/24, 2025 WL 2614623 (N.Y. Sup Ct, Kings County Sep. 09, 2025), the court, inter alia, dismissed plaintiff’s claims under the New York State and City Human Rights Law, since the alleged conduct did not occur in New York.
From the decision:
Both the NYSHRL and NYCHRL make it unlawful for an employer to refuse to hire or to discriminate against an individual in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of that person’s race, color, caregiver status, or sex/gender (see Executive Law § 296 [1] [a]; Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-107 [1] [a] [2], [3]). A plaintiff alleging discrimination in employment in violation of the NYSHRL must establish that: (1) she or he is a member of a protected class; (2) she or he was qualified to hold the position; (3) she or he suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) the adverse action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination (see Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d 295, 305 [2004]; Golston-Green v City of New York, 184 AD3d 24, 36 [2020]). Under the NYCHRL, the plaintiff must establish that she or he was subject to an unfavorable employment change or treated less well than other employees on the basis of a protected characteristic (see Golston-Green v City of New York, 184 AD3d at 38).
However, “[t]he State and City Human Rights Laws do not apply to acts of discrimination against New York residents committed outside their respective boundaries by foreign defendants” (Hardwick v Auriemma, 116 AD3d 465, 466 [1st Dept 2014]; see also Esposito v Altria Grp., Inc., 67 AD3d 499, 500 [1st Dept 2009]; Sorrentino v Citicorp, 302 AD2d 240, 240 [1st Dept 2003] [holding that “the age discrimination cause of action must be dismissed because the Human Rights Law does not provide a private cause of action to New York residents discriminated against outside of New York by foreign corporations”]). “[T]he focus is on whether the actions these defendants are alleged to have committed had an impact within the respective boundaries of the City and State of New York, in order for the court to exercise jurisdiction over them” (Hardwick v Auriemma, 116 AD3d at 467).
Thus, even if Clarke can establish that she was subject to discrimination during her employment for SOC based on her gender or race, she has no right to bring a proceeding under NYSHRL or NYCHRL for such discrimination against SOC, a foreign corporation, that allegedly occurred outside of New York. Here, the complaint explicitly alleges that “[a]t all relevant times, Plaintiff reported to work at Iraq’s Baghdad Diplomatic Support Center and the Iraq Embassy respectively” (NYSCEF Doc No. 4 at ¶ 9). That factual allegation in the complaint, which is presumed to be true on this CPLR 3211 (a) (7) motion, in addition to Clarke’s admission that she only knew the Individual Defendants while she was in Iraq, requires dismissal of the complaint as against SOC, since the alleged discriminatory conduct did not take place, or have any impact, within the City and State of New York.
Accordingly, held the court, dismissal was warranted.