In Rosa v. Amalgamated Bank, No. 156572/2025, 2026 WL 2078979 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. July 10, 2026), the court, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims asserted under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.
From the decision:
Plaintiffs pleaded that the alleged discriminatory conduct created a hostile work environment. Defendants argue that plaintiffs fail to state a hostile work environment claim because the complaint alleges only isolated workplace disputes, personality conflicts, and innocuous comments that amount to no more than petty slights and trivial inconveniences. Plaintiffs oppose and contend that, viewed in their totality, the allegations describe a sustained pattern of discriminatory treatment based upon plaintiffs’ protected characteristics.
To state a claim for hostile work environment under the NYCHRL, a plaintiff must allege that he or she was treated less well than other employees because of a protected characteristic (Williams v New York City Hous. Auth., 61 AD3d 62, 78-80 [1st Dept 2009]). In determining whether a hostile work environment has been adequately pleaded, the court considers the totality of the circumstances. Liability does not extend to petty slights or trivial inconveniences, which constitute an affirmative defense.
The branch of defendants’ motion seeking dismissal of the hostile work environment claim is denied. As discussed above, the complaint adequately alleges that plaintiffs were subjected to discriminatory comments and disparate treatment because of their protected characteristics. Considering those allegations in their totality, rather than in isolation, and according plaintiffs the benefit of every favorable inference, the complaint sufficiently alleges that plaintiffs were treated less well than other employees because of protected characteristics.
(Cleaned up.)
The court concluded this portion of its analysis by noting that whether the alleged conduct constitutes nothing more than “petty slights” or “trivial inconveniences” is not appropriately resolved on a motion to dismiss.