In Asad v. Mahoney et al, No. 9686/2011, 2023 WL 4565032, 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 32625(U) (N.Y. Sup Ct, Kings County July 17, 2023), the court, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ race-based hostile work environment claim under the New York City Human Rights (but not the New York State Human Rights) Law.
The court summarized the pertinent facts as follows:
The complaint … alleges that the plaintiffs experienced various forms of harassment as follows. Some of the plaintiffs were denied overtime even though they had seniority over the employees that were awarded the overtime hours. Most of the workers that were awarded overtime were either Caucasian or non-Black/African American. The defendants made defamatory statements about some of the plaintiffs accusing some of them of theft. The defendants did not pay parking tickets and parking fees even though it was an employer expense. The defendants subjected the plaintiffs to dirty and difficult work conditions. Some of the plaintiffs were banned from working certain jobs because the defendants only wanted Caucasian or non-Black/African American employees to come into their offices or residences. FQM supervisor James Mckiernan made racial remarks about all the plaintiffs. Although the defendants were notified about instances of discrimination there was no attempt to remedy the situation. The plaintiffs experienced unequal treatment when disciplined by the defendants in comparison to their Caucasian or non-Black/African American counterparts.
Although Hall was threatened with violence by a Caucasian co-worker and reported it to his supervisors, the Caucasian co-worker was not disciplined. Rather, the supervisor told Hall to fight so he could fire him.
The plaintiffs were referred to as “Bad Apples.” The plaintiffs experienced retaliation due to their complaints. The plaintiffs were shorted work hours. They experienced retaliation for making complaints. The defendants created an unsafe and hostile work environment for the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs allege that their work environment had become unsafe and hostile.
While the court held that the alleged conduct comprised “discrete acts that were not frequent in nature so as to create a hostile work environment” under the New York State Human Rights Law (and, therefore, they failed to raise a triable issue of fact under that statute), it reached the opposite conclusion as to the New York City Human Rights Law. Specifically, “as the NYCHRL offers broader protection to victims of discrimination, the plaintiffs have raised a triable regarding the discriminatory conduct” such that this is a “‘borderline situation’ that must be left to the trier of fact to determine.”