Plaintiff Fails to Plead That He Was Treated “Less Well” Because of His Disability; City Law Retaliation Claim Dismissed

In Torres v. New York City Dept. of Education, 18-cv-2156, 2019 WL 2124891 (E.D.N.Y. May 15, 2019), the court, inter alia, dismissed plaintiff’s retaliation claim under the New York City Human Rights Law.

The court explained that that statute “does not require an adverse employment action and a plaintiff must only provide evidence she was treated ‘less well’ than other employees based on her protected status.”

It explained why plaintiff’s allegations, as pled, were insufficient:

Here, Plaintiff provides no allegations suggesting that he was treated differently or “less well” because of his alleged disability. Plaintiff alleges that he was “treated in an hostile and abusive manner to which his similarly situated, non-Caucasian colleagues were not similarly subjected.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 12). This conclusory allegation alone is not enough to establish that Plaintiff was treated “less well” than other employees. Taylor v. City of New York, 207 F. Supp. 3d 293, 308–09 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (noting that “a plaintiff must still plead some facts that her employers’ actions disadvantaged her and that the action was connected to her protected activity”): See Feliciano v. City of New York, No. 14-CV-6751 (PAE), 2015 WL 4393163, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. July 15, 2015) (dismissing NYCHRL retaliation claim where plaintiff did “not plead any facts that would allow an inference that he was disadvantaged by his transfer.”) (emphasis in original). Based on the facts as pled, there is an insufficient basis to find that Plaintiff has alleged a retaliation claim even under the more lenient NYCHRL standard. Therefore, Defendant’s motion as to Plaintiff’s NYCHRL retaliation claim is granted.