Public Accommodation Discrimination Claims Sufficiently Alleged Against Zara

In Kaba v. Zara USA, Inc., No. 157434/2022, 2023 WL 2650422, 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 30930(U) (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Mar. 27, 2023), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s public accommodation discrimination claim under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.

From the decision:

The Court is unpersuaded as to Zara’s argument that plaintiffs failed to plead discrimination under either the State or City Human Rights Law. The NYSHRL provides that it **6 shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for owners, lessees, or proprietors of any public accommodation to deny to any such person on account of their race “any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges thereof.” (NY CLS Executive Law § 296 [2].) The NYCHRL is similarly worded: “it shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person” who is the owner, lessee, or proprietor “to refuse, withhold from, or deny to such person the full and equal enjoyment, on equal terms and conditions, of any of the accommodations, advantages, services, facilities, or privileges of the place” on account of that person’s race. (NYC Administrative Code § 8-107 [4].) Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that Zara’s security guards, in connecting plaintiffs to the real shoplifter, racially profiled plaintiffs and that because of such racial profiling, plaintiffs were detained by the responding police offers. Based on the plain meaning of the statutes, plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that they were denied the full, equal enjoyment of Zara’s store, on equal terms with the rest of Zara’s customers. [Cleaned up.]

While plaintiff’s complaint sufficiently alleged the aforementioned claims, it did not sufficiently allege claims of slander per se, false arrest and imprisonment, assault and battery, and negligent hiring, training, and supervision.

Share This: