In Brisita v. City University of New York, No. 160802/2022, 2026 WL 2017701 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 30, 2026), the court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim of discrimination based on sex, marital status, and pregnancy.
From the decision:
It is undisputed that plaintiff was employed as Higher Education Officer for The City College of New York (CCNY), a senior college within defendant’s college system. She alleges that she was not reappointed to her position due to her sex, marital status, and pregnancy. Plaintiff commenced this action alleging violations of Executive Law 296(a), the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL).
Among the arguments made by defendant in favor of dismissal is that any allegedly discriminatory conduct cannot be imputed to it as a matter of law, noting that in her amended complaint (NYSCEF 5), plaintiff alleges that she was employed by CCNY as of July 2015, and that the discriminatory actions were taken by her immediate CCNY supervisor and his assistant.
Under the NYSHRL, an employer cannot be held liable for an employee’s discriminatory act unless the employer became a party to it by encouraging, condoning, or approving it (Clayton v Best Buy Co., Inc., 48 AD3d 277 [1st Dept 2008]).Here, nowhere in the complaint does plaintiff allege that she reported any discrimination to anyone within CCNY, much less to CUNY, or that CUNY ever became aware of it. Even assuming that CUNY was plaintiff’s employer, there is no allegation that CUNY encouraged, condoned, or approved any discriminatory conduct (see Doe v Bloomberg, L.P., 36 NY3d 450 [2021] [observing that NYSHRL did not impose vicarious liability on employers, and that therefore only employer who became party to discriminatory conduct could be held liable]; Zakrzewska v New School, 14 NY3d 469 [2010] [NYSHRL imposes liability “only where the employer encourages, condones or approves the unlawful discriminatory acts”, which factors are not considered under the City HRL as long as the offending employee exercised managerial or supervisory control]). None of the caselaw cited by plaintiff in opposition to defendant’s motion is applicable and/or binding.
Absent any alleged link between CUNY and the alleged discriminatory actions taken by CCNY employees, plaintiff fails to state a claim for discrimination against CUNY under the NYSHRL (see Moscatelli v Woodbury Med. Practice, P.C., 241 AD3d 1463 [2d Dept 2025] [court should have dismissed claims against certain defendants as complaint failed to allege that they subjected plaintiff to hostile work environment or otherwise condoned conduct of other employees]).
Accordingly, held the court, dismissal was warranted.