In Greenidge v. City of New York, No. 155062/2022, 2023 WL 6598626 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Oct. 10, 2023), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim of race discrimination asserted under the New York City Human Rights Law.
From the decision:
Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim of employment discrimination based on his race is also denied. Although, as the City notes, the complaint never indicates plaintiff’s race, its allegation that he was discriminated by race as demonstrated by the fact that his partner, who is white, was granted time on medical leave not afforded to plaintiff is, taking all reasonable inferences for plaintiff, sufficient to allege that plaintiff is not white. In his opposition to this motion, plaintiff’s counsel clarifies that plaintiff is African American (NYSCEF Doc. No. 10 [Memo. of Law. in Opp. at p. 20]).
The City’s argument that plaintiff has not alleged facts to support an inference of discriminatory animus based on his race fails. At this juncture, affording the complaint all reasonable inferences and mindful of the generous notice pleading standard to be applied, the Court concludes that plaintiff’s identification of a specific comparator in the form of his partner is sufficient, at this juncture, to meet his burden on this point
In support of this conclusion, the court cited Pelepelin v City of New York, 189 AD3d 450 [1st Dept 2020], where the court held that the plaintiff there “amply met” their pleading burden by “naming as a comparator a specific individual whose details can be particularly verified during discovery.”