Gender, Disability Discrimination Claims Dismissed Against Citibank

In Scalercio-Isenberg v Citibank NMTC Corp., No. 100030/19, 2019 WL 2559433 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County June 17, 2019), the court, inter alia, dismissed plaintiff’s failure-to-hire discrimination claim.

Among other things, plaintiff alleged that she received an “inappropriate sexual text message” from the individual defendant.

From the decision:

… As for her state and city claims, plaintiff’s complaint is devoid of any facts to support any cause of action. To state a claim for discrimination, plaintiff must allege that: [1] she is a member of a protected class; [2] she was qualified to hold the position; [3] she was terminated from employment or suffered another adverse employment action; and [4] the discharge or other adverse action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination (Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d 295, 305 [2004]; see also Melman v. Montefiore Medical Center, 98 AD3d 107 [1st Dept 2012]).

First, beyond conclusory statements that she was discriminated on the basis of a disability, she has failed to specify what that disability actually is. As for gender, there are no facts which link the purported decision not to hire her. Absent such facts, plaintiff has failed to allege that the defendant’s failure to hire her gives rise to an inference of discrimination (see Forrest, supra). Indeed, as defendants correctly point out, plaintiff never even applied for a job with them, beyond allegedly having conversations about a project with the individual defendant. Further, plaintiff does not allege that someone outside her protected class was treated better than she was.