In Ophir v. Koneksa Health Inc., No. 655301/2025, 2026 WL 1472577 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 19, 2026), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s retaliation claims asserted under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws, finding that such claims were sufficiently alleged.
From the decision:
The retaliation claims under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL are likewise adequately alleged. To state a claim for retaliation, the Plaintiff must alleged he engaged in a protected activity, his employer was aware of such activity, that he suffered an adverse employment action based upon the activity, and a causal connection exists between the protected activity and the adverse action (see Harrington v City of New York, 157 AD3d 582, 585 [1st Dept 2018]). Here, Plaintiff alleges he engaged in a protected activity – namely bringing to Defendants’ attention that another member of the ELT had allegedly spiked an employee’s drink at a company event and expressing concern over potential sexual assault. Defendants were aware of such activity as the matter was brought directly to the Benko. Plaintiff suffered an adverse action because he was terminated just weeks after making the complaint and while trying to discuss it with Benko, Plaintiff suffered hostility and yelling from Benko. Given the temporal proximity between the protected activity and the adverse employment action, and Benko’s allegedly negative and hostile reaction, the Court can, for purposes of a pre-answer motion to dismiss, draw an inference of casual connection between the protected activity and the adverse action (see, e.g. Pelepelin v City of New York, 189 AD3d 450, 452 [1st Dept 2020] citing Krebaum v Capital One, N.A., 138 AD3d 528, 528-529 [1st dept 2016]).
Accordingly, dismissal of these claims was not warranted.