In Estep v. Brenner, No. 159639/2022, 2023 WL 3889780 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County June 08, 2023), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim under the New York City Human Rights Law (but not the New York State Human Rights Law).
This decision, as such, illustrates the differences between these two statutes.
As to the city law, the court explained:
Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff states a cause of action for hostile work environment under the NYCHRL. The Verified Complaint alleges that Plaintiff was subject to derogatory remarks directed at his race or sexual orientation on more than one occasion, that a coworker spread unfounded rumors about his sexuality, and that he was subjected to workplace conditions not experienced by his fellow teachers such as not being allowed to email parents of students and having a teaching aide in class. Taken together in context and keeping with the broad remedial purposes of the NYCHRL (Williams, 61 AD3d at 76), these allegations amount to more than a “truly insubstantial case” of hostile work environment (Hernandez v Kaisman, 103 AD3d 106, 115 [1st Dept 2012]). Plaintiff also sufficiently sets forth that he was subject to disparate treatment from similarly situated employees by alleging that other teachers — the majority of whom were white, heterosexual, and female — did not face the same derogatory treatment or workplace restrictions as him. The branch of the motion seeking dismissal of the first cause of action is therefore denied.
However, the court held that plaintiff failed to state a claim under the more stringent New York State Human Rights Law, explaining that the alleged conduct “cannot be said to have been so severe or pervasive as to have altered the conditions of Plaintiff’s employment or create an objectively abusive environment.”