In Lugo v. Jfk Cartage, Inc., No. 704862/22, 2022 WL 17733500 (N.Y. Sup Ct, Queens County Nov. 23, 2022), the court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims of employment discrimination asserted under the New York State Human Rights Law.
From the decision:
On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the sole criterion is whether the pleading states a cause of action, and if from its four corners factual allegations are discerned which taken together manifest any cause of action cognizable at law a motion for dismissal will fail. See, Guggenheimer v. Ginzburg, 43 N.Y.2d 268, 275 (1977). The complaint must be construed liberally, the factual allegations deemed to be true, and the nonmoving party granted the benefit of every possible favorable inference. See, Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 87-88 (1994).
To state a cause of action alleging age discrimination under the New York Human Rights Law (Executive Law ยง 296), a plaintiff must plead facts that would tend to show (1) that she was a member of a protected class, (2) that she was actively or constructively discharged or suffered an adverse employment action, (3) that she was qualified to hold the position for which he or she was terminated or suffered an adverse employment action, and (4) that the discharge or adverse employment action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. See, Godino v. Premier Salons, Ltd., 140 A.D.3d 1118, 1119 (2nd Dept. 2016).
Applying the law, the court held that based on these criteria, plaintiff’s complaint presents tenable causes of action, and denied plaintiff’s complaint.