In Small v. Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA), No. 158315/2024, 2026 WL 1880199 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 23, 2026), the court, inter alia, held that plaintiff’s discrimination and hostile work environment claims are barred by the “election of remedies” doctrine under the New York State Human Rights Law.
From the decision:
[The NYSHRL] provides that “any person claiming to be aggrieved by an unlawful discriminatory practice shall have a cause of action in any court of appropriate jurisdiction for damages, . . . unless such person had filed a complaint hereunder or with any local commission on human rights.” Under this language, if a party files a complaint with the State Division of Human Rights, that party is precluded from suing on that claim in court. …
The NYCHRL imposes this same election-of-remedies requirement. Under the NYCHRL, “any person claiming to be a person aggrieved by an unlawful discriminatory practice . . . shall have a cause of action in any court of competent jurisdiction for damages . . . unless such person has filed a complaint with the city commission on human rights or with the state division of human rights with respect to such alleged unlawful discriminatory practice or act of discriminatory harassment or violence.”
Plaintiff alleges that, among other things, after he filed complaints about workplace misconduct and unequal treatment in 2019, defendants began issuing unwarranted disciplinary charges against him and disparately disciplined him. Likewise, in his 2023 Division of Human Rights complaint, plaintiff alleged that NYC Transit (respondent’s parent entity) charged him with bribery, sexual harassment, harassment, and discrimination as a result of a 2019 complaint he filed against one of NYC Transit’s department heads.
Defendants argue that plaintiff’s fifth, sixth, and tenth causes of action arise from the same alleged discrimination that plaintiff raised (unsuccessfully) before the Division of Human Rights. Therefore, defendants contend, those claims are subject to dismissal under the election-of-remedies doctrine.
Plaintiff argues that the election-of-remedies doctrine applies only to the claims he placed before the Division of Human Rights: the “arbitration/demotion-related dispute.” Plaintiff contends that his complaint includes allegations in 2024 about retaliation and adverse action, that have not been brought before the Division of Human Rights. Plaintiff also argues that the election of remedies doctrine cannot justify dismissal of non-HRL claims.This court agrees that the election-of-remedies doctrine applies to plaintiff’s discrimination and hostile-work-environment claims. Plaintiff’s sole 2024 allegation is that after he underwent disciplinary action, he was reassigned to a less favorable shift and received “only partial backpay in January 2024.” And this claim is “based on the same continuing allegedly discriminatory underlying conduct asserted” before the Division of Human Rights.
Plaintiff’s NYSHRL and NYCHRL retaliation and hostile-work-environment claims (counts five, six, and ten) are barred by the doctrine of remedies.
(Cleaned up.)
Having reached this conclusion, the court did not reach defendants’ contention that those claims are time-barred or fail to state a cause of action.