In Miranda v. YBJ Incorporated, 2023 WL 3122876, at *2–3 (S.D.N.Y. April 27, 2023), the court dismissed plaintiff’s employment discrimination claim ,asserted under the New York State Human Rights Law.
From the decision:
Defendants argue the Court may not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s NYSHRL claim3 because it arises from facts unrelated to plaintiff’s FLSA claim.
The Court agrees.
As an initial matter, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s FLSA claim because it arises under federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
However, because the citizenship of the parties is not diverse, the Court must determine whether it may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s NYSHRL discrimination claim.4
Here, the factual allegations underlying plaintiff’s FLSA claim concern what he was paid and how long he worked. The factual allegations underlying plaintiff’s discrimination claim concern plaintiff’s allegedly poor treatment by his supervisors and colleagues due to plaintiff’s membership in a protected class and plaintiff’s eventual termination from employment. The employment relationship is the only overlapping fact.Otherwise, plaintiff’s discrimination claim “simply [has] nothing to do with whether plaintiff[ ] [was] paid … overtime as required under the FLSA.” Shibetti v. Z. Rest., Diner & Lounge, Inc., 478 F. Supp. 3d 403, 408–11 (E.D.N.Y. 2020) (dismissing NYSHRL and NYCHRL sex discrimination claims and collecting similar cases).
The court thus concluded that plaintiff’s NYSHRL claim must e dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.