In Judson v. Elliott Management Corp., No. 652185/2021, 2023 WL 1800998 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Feb. 06, 2023), the court, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s age-based hostile work environment claim asserted under the New York City Human Rights Law.
From the decision:
While Plaintiff cannot state a claim for hostile work environment related to comments made about a protected class he is not a member of, Plaintiff has stated a claim for hostile work environment under the NYCHRL based on age discrimination. Since Williams, the courts in this State have analyzed NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims differently. As Plaintiff argues, the NYCHRL sets a lower standard for maintaining a cause of action for hostile work environment. Instead, a plaintiff must allege that he or she “was treated less well than other employees because of the relevant characteristic”. Under the NYCHRL, moreover, “ ‘questions of “severity” and “pervasiveness” are applicable to the scope of permissible damages, but not to the question of underlying liability.
Given the facts alleged, dismissal is premature. Contrary to Defendants’ assertion, the Complaint does not simply state that Defendants made a single ageist comment to a third party. In addition, the Complaint states that Olovyannikov “frequently mentioned that he wanted to get rid of the older employees in the office,” replacing them with younger employees, and that he wanted to replace Plaintiff for this reason. Although Defendants suggest that none of the comments were made to Plaintiff, the Complaint asserts otherwise, stating that he “directly referred to Plaintiff as ‘old’ on a number of occasions”. The extent to which the statements were made in Plaintiff’s presence, and whether the statements were “severe or pervasive or just petty offenses” are issues of fact which cannot be resolved on a motion to dismiss.
[Cleaned up.]
This decision illustrates the breadth of the New York City Human Rights Law, as well as the relatively lenient standard courts apply when reviewing a discrimination complaint’s facial sufficiency.