In Summerville v. Tradeweb Markets, LLC, No. 160245/2021, 2023 WL 2613131 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Mar. 23, 2023), the court, inter alia, dismissed plaintiff’s race- and gender-based discrimination and hostile work environment claims asserted under the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws.
From the decision:
Plaintiff alleges that the reason proffered for her termination was “downsizing”. However, Plaintiff alleges this was just pretext because Tradeweb had a record-breaking year for revenues. Plaintiff alleges she was terminated because they grew tired of her complaining, and that had she not been African American or a woman, she would not have been terminated.
Plaintiff alleges that her “work environment became permeated with discriminatory animus.” However, she cites to no specific instances or remarks made towards her or others which substantiate this conclusory allegation.
In fact, Plaintiff alleges she was offered a higher title and new position as an “EA Leader” and alleges that she routinely received raises and bonuses during her time at Tradeweb. While Plaintiff alleges her salary/bonus remained flat on at least two occasions, she was allegedly told this was on account that she was already one of the top executive assistant earners. Although Plaintiff alleges that “upon information and belief” she was not a top earning Executive Assistant, assertions pled upon information and belief without facts to support are insufficient to overcome a motion to dismiss.
Likewise, the Complaint fails to allege any facts or comparators indicating that other employees were not terminated as part of the Company’s alleged downsizing. Because there are insufficient facts pled which give rise to an inference of discrimination, Plaintiff’s discrimination and hostile work environment claims are dismissed.
[Cleaned up; citations omitted.]
The court contrasted the facts of this case with those of a First Department case, O’Rourke v. National Foreign Trade Council, Inc., 176 AD3d 517 (1st Dept. 2019), in which the court found an inference of discrimination where the supervisor there allegedly “insulted, excluded, and concealed information from her, and denied her requests for a raise” and made comments that arguably reflected gender-based animus, including “You women are such sensitive flowers” and that he “only supports humble and meek women.”