In Phillip v. Bloomberg L.P., 2026 WL 3084874 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. Oct. 1, 2026), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim of race discrimination asserted under the New York City Human Rights Law (but not the New York State Human Rights Law).
The court summarized the facts, in part, as follows:
Plaintiff, a 22-year-old African American woman, was employed by Bloomberg. During her tenure, she regularly wore various wigs, frequently changed her hairstyle, length, and color. In October 2021, during a zoom video meeting with other employees, Plaintiff appeared wearing a blonde wig. Plaintiff’s supervisor, Damian Mancebo (Mancebo) remarked to the assembled participants, “Hey, we have a new employee. Her name is Tahira.” Plaintiff states that she felt humiliated and embarrassed by the comment but did not express her discomfort at that time. Approximately three to four days later, during a routine one-to-one meeting held with Mancebo and Plaintiff, Plaintiff appeared with a different colored wig. Mancebo stared at Plaintiff and stated “Again, what happened to your hair?” At that point, Plaintiff instructed Mancebo to stop. It is undisputed that Mancebo immediately complied, ceased all hair-related commentary, and focused entirely on the business matter at hand.
As to the New York State Human Rights Law, the court held that dismissal was warranted, noting that “Mancebo’s comments, while unprofessional, constitutes a non-actionable petty slight under the State standard as a matter of law” given that “[u]pon the very first instance of Plaintiff indicating her discomfort and requesting that the comments cease, Mancebo immediately complied and never repeated the behavior.”
However, the court reached the opposite conclusion as to the New York City Human Rights Law:
An entirely distinct analysis must be applied to claims brought under the New York City Human Rights Law (Admin. Code § 8-107), which New York courts are required to construe with maximum independence and liberality. Under the NYCHRL, a plaintiff is not required to demonstrate a tangible “adverse employment action” or a traditional hostile work environment to survive summary judgment. Rather, the plaintiff need only demonstrate that she was “treated less well” than other employees because of a protected characteristic.
Mancebo’s public announcement on a Zoom meeting with other team members, introducing a Black female employee as a “new hire” based entirely on her decision to change her wig constitutes a targeted public scrutiny of an identity-linked trait. Under controlling First Department authority, whether an employer’s conduct rises above a “petty slight or trivial inconvenience” under the City law is an affirmative defense that must ordinarily be resolved by a jury. Furthermore, the NYCHRL imposes strict liability upon employers for the discriminatory conduct of an employee exercising managerial or supervisory control. Bloomberg’s HR response and the total absence of tangible economic damage does not absolve the company of liability; instead, they serve to mitigate potential damages at trial. Because Plaintiff’s sworn deposition testimony creates a triable issue regarding whether she was treated less well because of her protected traits, this narrow claim must survive summary judgment.
This decision thus reinforces the crucial distinction between these two laws, and illustrates the breath of the NYCHRL.