Gender/Pregnancy Hostile Work Environment Claim Dismissed; Attendance Monitoring Insufficient

In Emmanuel v. Cushman & Wakefield, Inc., No. 159316/15, 2018 WL 4148520 (Sup Ct, New York County Aug. 30, 2018) (J. Bannon), the court, inter alia, granted defendants summary judgment on plaintiff’s NYC Human Rights Law hostile work environment claim.

From the decision:

The court rejects the plaintiff’s contention that she raised a triable issue of fact as to whether she was treated less well than other employees because her attendance was monitored and she was required to swipe her identification card upon arriving at and leaving the office. The plaintiff’s deposition testimony reflects that at least one non-pregnant receptionist was required to swipe her identification card. Her remaining claims that she was treated less well due to her gender are conclusory and cannot defeat summary judgment. Even under the NYCHRL, “not every plaintiff asserting a discrimination claim will be entitled to reach a jury.” Melman v Montefiore Med. Ctr., supra, at 131. Nor does the plaintiff raise a triable issue of fact with respect to discriminatory intent and hostile work environment with her allegations that Coger made a total of three comments regarding the plaintiff’s pregnancy, or [plaintiff’s supervisor]s 2009 inquiry if she had children. Despite the broader application of the NYCHRL, conduct that consists of “petty slights or trivial inconveniences . . . do[es] not suffice to support a hostile work environment claim.” Buchwald v Silverman Shin & Byrne PLLC, 149 AD3d 560, 560 (1st Dept. 2017) (citation omitted). Contrary to the plaintiff’s contentions, “a plaintiff’s feelings and perceptions of being discriminated against are not evidence of discrimination.”

Share This: