In Wheeler v. Praxair Surface Technologies, Inc., 21 Civ. 1165, 2023 WL 6282903 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2023), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s race-based hostile work environment claim asserted under the New York State Human Rights Law.
This case is instructive as to the applicability of the the relatively recent amendments to that law, effective October 11, 2019. Pursuant to those amendments, which broadened the statute’s reach, requires a plaintiff to establish that he was subjected to “inferior terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of the individual’s membership in one or more … protected categories.” This is a departure from the more restrictive “severe or pervasive” standard, which applies under federal law (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964).
Here, some alleged conduct occurred before, and some after, October 11, 2019. As to the former, the court (applying the more restrictive standard) granted defendant’s motion.
However, as to conduct occurring after that date, the court reached the opposite conclusion:
The persistent derogatory comments about Black people made in Wheeler’s presence by multiple PST personnel, including managers and Wheeler’s team leader, clear this bar. Wheeler alleges that several colleagues consistently made derogatory comments about Black people throughout his tenure. These include, as noted, manager Gibson’s “routine” comments that Black people “should feel lucky to have any job at all,” team lead Minucci’s statements that it was “unsurprising” that Black employees had been terminated or passed over for advancement because “[B]lack people are lazy and do not work hard,” Minucci’s annual disparagement of a Black employee for taking MLK Day off, and co-worker Nelson’s comment likening Wheeler to an armed vault robber and play-acting being robbed. Considering these incidents in combination, a reasonable jury could find that white employees were not subject to similar aspersions, and that Wheeler was thus treated “less well” because of his race. That is so for several reasons.
First, much of the commentary at issue overtly referenced race. Cf. Lennert-Gonzalez v. Delta Airlines, Inc., No. 11 Civ. 1459 (JMF), 2013 WL 754710, at *8 (Feb. 28, 2013) (NYCHRL hostile environment claim failed where plaintiff could not connect hostile conduct to national origin); Rozenfeld v. Dep’t of Design & Const. of City of N.Y., 875 F. Supp. 2d 189, 209 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (plaintiff failed to draw connection between derogatory comment and protected class); Marseille v. Mount Sinai Health Sys., Inc., No. 18 Civ. 12136 (VEC), 2021 WL 3475620, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2021), aff’d sub nom. Marseille v. Mount Sinai Hosp., No. 21-2140, 2022 WL 14700981 (2d Cir. Oct. 26, 2022) (plaintiff had not raised triable question of fact on hostile work environment claim under NYCHRL absent evidence linking conduct to protected characteristics). Here, by contrast, most of the conduct Wheeler describes was overtly racial in nature. Mihalik, 715 F.3d at 110.
Second, multiple persons, including managers, expressed these views, and did so repeatedly, so as to permit a jury crediting Wheeler’s account to find it indicative of workplace culture. Under the NYCHRL standard, “even a single comment may be actionable in the proper context.” Mihalik, 715 F.3d at 113 (citing Williams, 872 N.Y.S.2d at 41 & n.30); see also Hernandez v. Kaisman, 957 N.Y.S.2d 53, 59 (1st Dep’t 2012) (denying summary judgment to employer under NYCHRL despite “isolated” nature of inappropriate comments because these “foster[ed] an office environment that degraded women”); Modica v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., No. 20 Civ. 4834 (JMF), 2021 WL 3408587, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2021) (finding allegation that employee ridiculed plaintiff at meeting based on her disability stated plausible hostile work environment claim under post-amendment NYSHRL); Sanderson v. Leg Apparel LLC, No. 19 Civ. 8423 (GHW), 2020 WL 7342742, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2020) (holding three comments about plaintiff’s perceived sexual orientation sufficient to allege that plaintiff had been treated “less well” on basis of protected class).
Third, the offending commentary demeans PST’s Black employees as unworthy of the workplace on account of race.
[Cleaned up.]
Based on this, the court denied defendant’s summary judgment motion, to the extent it was directed at plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim based on conduct occurring after the October 11, 2019 amendment of the NYS Human Rights Law.