In Huang v. Chibaola, Inc., No. 650248/2025, 2025 WL 3636451 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Dec. 08, 2025), the court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims asserted under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.
From the decision:
Under the NYSHRL, a plaintiff who alleges discrimination in employment has the initial burden to establish a prima facie case of discrimination by showing that (1) she is a member of a protected class, (2) she was qualified to hold the position, (3) she suffered an adverse employment action or was treated differently than other employees, and (4) the adverse action or differential treatment occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 N.Y.3d 295, 819 N.E.2d 998 (2004). The NYCHRL requires a showing that a plaintiff was treated “less well” because of a “discriminatory intent”. Mihalik v Credit Agricole Cheuvreux N. Am., Inc., 715 F3d 102, 110 (2d Cir 2013).
Here, the plaintiff alleges a bag-search policy in the restaurant, but fails to allege that he was personally subjected to it or suffered any tangible injury or adverse employment action as a result (NYSCEF Doc No. 2 ¶ 31-34). The pleadings contain no facts showing that defendants’ conduct was motivated by discriminatory animus or that the workplace was “permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult” sufficient to establish a hostile work environment. Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 N.Y.3d 295, 819 N.E.2d 998 (2004).
Huang alleges that the workplace bag-search policy was written solely in Chinese despite the presence of non-Chinese employees (NYSCEF Doc No. 2 ¶ 31-32). However, it does not appear that he was personally affected by this policy or that it resulted in any adverse or differential treatment. Without facts connecting the language of the policy to discriminatory impact, this allegation does not support a claim of disparate treatment or a hostile work environment.
Based on this, the court concluded that the record fails to set forth facts sufficient to support a plausible inference of discrimination or a hostile working environment, warranting dismissal.