In Roman v. City of New York, No. 161413/2021, 2023 WL 3225419 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Apr. 28, 2023), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s age and race-based discrimination and hostile work environment claims under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.
From the decision:
Plaintiff alleges that the defendants engaged in unlawful employment discrimination in violation of the City HRL and State HRL in that he was denied employment benefits and received disparate treatment on the basis of his race and age.
A plaintiff alleging discrimination in employment under the State HRL has the initial burden to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. To meet this burden, plaintiff must show that (1) they are a member of a protected class; (2) they were qualified to hold the position; (3) they were 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. New York courts look to federal law when determining claims under the New York State Human Rights Law. However, for claims that accrue on or after the effective date of October 11, 2019,1 the provisions of the State HRL must be construed liberally for the accomplishment of the remedial purposes thereof, regardless of whether federal civil rights laws, including those laws with provisions worded comparably to the provisions of this article, have been so construed.
Under the City HRL, a plaintiff only needs to demonstrate that they were treated less well because of their membership in a protected class. To state a claim for discrimination, the plaintiff must only show differential treatment of any degree based on a discriminatory motive.
Plaintiff has established that he is a member of protected class, Hispanic, and was qualified for his position. As to racial discrimination, plaintiff has sufficiently alleged differential treatment from similarly-situated employees outside his protected group, in the form of differences in pay, overtime, training opportunities, unequal work tasks, and more. Therefore, the defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s State HRL claims of discrimination based on race is denied.
The City HRL must be construed broadly in favor of discrimination plaintiffs. It is proper to dismiss a claim under the City HRL only if the defendant demonstrates that it is entitled to summary judgment under both the McDonnell Douglas and mixed motive frameworks. The analysis set forth above regarding the State HRL is equally relevant under the more liberal City HRL analysis. Therefore, the defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s City HRL claims of discrimination based on race is denied.
Plaintiff additionally alleges that he was subject to age discrimination, specifically in the denial of two promotions on or after October 12, 2019. Plaintiff adequately alleges membership in a protected class, he is over 40, and has demonstrated that he was qualified for the two vacant positions in which he applied and interviewed. Plaintiff has alleged that in the interview, he was asked if “he was up for the amount of work that the position required” which plaintiff claims was suggestive of his age. Plaintiff has alleged that the positions were then filled by people that were less qualified and under the age of 40. Accordingly, plaintiff has adequately plead that he was treated less well or experienced differential treatment because of his age. Therefore, defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims of age discrimination is denied under both the State and City HRLs.
[Cleaned up.]
The court also denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims, since the standards for hostile work environment and discrimination under these statutes (including the state law, as recently amended) are “identical in every respect.”