In Jordan v. Arthouse Hotel, Inc., No. 153129/2024, 2026 WL 2079021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. July 10, 2026), the court, inter alia, held that plaintiff sufficiently alleged claims for employment discrimination and assault & battery.
The court summarized the facts as follows:
Plaintiff Martha Jordan (“plaintiff) began working as a housekeeper for defendants at the Arthouse Hotel located at 222 West 77th Street in Manhattan in May 2022 (NYSCEF Doc No. 34; ¶¶ 12, 21). The Arthouse Hotel employed Daniel as a “Houseman” in support of the hotel staff (id., 121). Plaintiffs job responsibilities included room upkeep and general hotel guest services, including transporting supplies to various hotel guest rooms (id). Plaintiff alleges that from May 2022 through and including September 2023, Daniel approached her during work hours to make “small talk” with her (id., ¶ 22). On September 12, 2023, at approximately 11:30 a.m., Daniel allegedly approached plaintiff while she was working at her post near the staff lunchroom area (id., ¶ 23). Daniel engaged in conversation with plaintiff (id). Plaintiff alleges that Daniel then forcefully grabbed plaintiff and pulled her towards him and demanded that she go “upstairs” with him (id.). While plaintiff was forced against the wall, Daniel allegedly showed her his clenched fist and violently restrained her against her will, as plaintiff physically and verbally protested (id.). According to plaintiff, Daniel then “violently assaulted” her in the presence of other hotel staff and within view of the security cameras (id., ¶ 24). Daniel, who weighed nearly 200 pounds, allegedly thrusted his body onto plaintiff with his clenched fist in her face (id., ¶ 25). Plaintiff claims that she pleaded for him to stop, yelled for help, and was eventually able to break free from his grasp (id., ¶ 28). Plaintiff claims she informed her manager, “Suzie,” of the assault later that day, and instructed her to go check the security cameras to “look at what [Daniel] did to me” (id., ¶ 29). Suzie allegedly failed to do so and told plaintiff to “shut up or be fired” (id.). Plaintiff alleges that she has suffered severe emotional distress as a result.
(Paragraphing altered.)
As to plaintiff’s claim under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), the court explained:
The NYSHRL was amended in October 2019 to provide that harassment2 is actionable “regardless of whether such harassment would be considered severe or pervasive under precedent applied to harassment claims” (Executive Law § 296 [1] [h]). “[T]he plaintiff need demonstrate only that [the plaintiff] was subjected to ‘inferior terms, conditions or privileges of employment’ ”. Golston-Green v. City of New York, 184 A.D.3d 24, 41 (2d Dept 2020), quoting Executive Law § 296 [1] [h]). “Courts must construe the [NYSHRL] ‘broadly in favor of discrimination plaintiffs, to the extent that such a construction is reasonably possible’ ”. Syeed v. Bloomberg L.P., 41 N.Y.3d 446, 451 (2024), quoting Albunio v. City of New York, 16 N.Y.3d 472, 477-478 (2011); see also Executive Law § 300.
Employment discrimination claims are generally reviewed under “notice pleading standards” and a plaintiff alleging employment discrimination need only give fair notice of the nature of the claim and its grounds. See Vig v. New York Hairspray Co., L.P., 67 A.D.3d 140, 145 (1st Dept 2009). Here, plaintiff’s allegations that Daniel sexually assaulted her are sufficient to allege that she was “subjected to inferior terms, conditions, or privileges on the basis of her gender”. Crawford v. American Broadcasting Co., Inc., 216 A.D.3d 507, 508 (1st Dept 2023). Indeed, “[e]ven a single incident of sexual assault sufficiently alters the conditions of the victim’s employment and clearly creates an abusive work environment”. View more Negative TreatmentsTomka v. Seiler Corp., 66 F.3d 1295, 1305 (2d Cir 1995). “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”. Matter of State Div. of Human Rights v. St. Elizabeth’s Hosp., 66 N.Y.2d 684 (1985). Here, the first amended complaint alleges plaintiff informed her manager, who failed to investigate the conduct and allegedly told her to “shut up or be fired”. Defendants do not “utterly refute plaintiff’s allegations [and] conclusively establish[] a defense as a matter of law”. Goshen, 98 N.Y.2d at 326. Accordingly, defendants are not entitled to dismissal of the fifth cause of action.
However, the court rejected plaintiff’s allegation based on defendants’ failure to adopt a sexual harassment policy, reasoning that N.Y. Labor Law § 201-g does not create a private cause of action.
Moreover, the court held that plaintiff’s claims of assault and battery survive, noting plaintiff’s allegations that Daniel “forcefully grab[bed]” her and “demanded that she go “upstairs” with her with his clenched fist in her face, and that Daniel “violently assaulted” her and thrusted his whole body upon her and pulled her against the wall.