In Salvetti v. Hillside Children’s Center, No. 24-CV-6586-FPG, 2026 WL 2294388 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2026), the court, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint alleging sexual orientation discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law.
From the decision:
Hostile work environment claims under both [federal law] and the NYSHRL are governed by the same standard. Cherry v. New York City Hous. Auth., 564 F. Supp. 3d 140, 181 (E.D.N.Y. 2021). As explained earlier, to establish a hostile work environment claim, a plaintiff must “show that ‘the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult[ ] that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.’ ” Id. at 181 (quoting Duplan v. City of New York, 888 F.3d 612, 627 (2d Cir. 2018). Here, Plaintiff alleges that “as a result of [his] sexual orientation, he suffered adverse employment actions and [was] subjected to a hostile work environment.” ECF No. 19 at 11. However, Plaintiff fails to sufficiently allege that his workplace was permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule and insult sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of his employment. As such, Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently state a claim for a hostile work environment under the NYSHRL.
For a disparate treatment claim under the NYSHRL, “a plaintiff can raise an inference of discrimination by demonstrating the disparate treatment of similarly situated employees but must show he was similarly situated in all material respects to the individuals with whom [he] seeks to compare himself.” Here, Plaintiff alleges that he suffered disparate treatment by Defendant, in violation of the NYSHRL, when he was “written up” for contacting management while management was off duty although “other employees continued to contact management while off duty without repercussions.” However, Plaintiff does not identify who wrote him up nor does he identify who the “other employees” that contacted management without repercussions were and whether they were inside or outside of Plaintiff’s protected class. See Blige v. City Univ. of New York, No. 15-CV-8873, 2017 WL 498580, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2017) (“Numerous courts within the Second Circuit have granted motions to dismiss disparate treatment claims where the complaint was entirely devoid of any details regarding the purported comparators, e.g., who they are, what their positions or responsibilities were at [the defendant employer], how their conduct compared to plaintiff[‘]s or how they were treated differently by defendants.”), report and recommendation adopted, 15-CV-8873, 2017 WL 1064716 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2017).
(Emphasis added; citations omitted; cleaned up.)
Accordingly, the court concluded that plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged a sexual orientation discrimination or disparate impact claim, in violation of the NYSHRL.