In Walker v. Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority et al, No. 160839/21, 2022-04246, 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 05344, 2023 WL 6884130 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept., Oct. 19, 2023), the Appellate Division, First Department unanimously affirmed the trial court’s Order denying defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s causes of action for discrimination and retaliation under the New York City Human Rights Law and New York State Human Rights Law (State HRL), her aiding and abetting claims against individual defendant Sharon Gallo–Kotcher, and her claims under the Gender–Motivated Violence Act.
Initially, the court held that the federal court’s decision granting dismissal of plaintiff’s federal discrimination claims at the pleading stage does not preclude her State and City Human Rights Law claims under principles of collateral estoppel, noting that “[u]nlike in federal discrimination claims, employment discrimination claims brought under the City and State HRLs are generally analyzed under a lenient notice pleading standard, whereby the plaintiff need not plead specific facts, but must only give the defendants ‘fair notice’ of the nature and grounds of the claims” and that here, “plaintiff has not had a full and fair opportunity to litigate her City and State HRL claims under the appropriate standards.”
Next, the court held that plaintiff sufficiently pleaded her claim of discrimination and hostile work environment under the State and City Human Rights Laws:
The complaint alleges that she received more intense scrutiny and was excluded from meetings that her male, non-Black peer was invited to join. Defendant Victor Muallem allegedly subjected her to verbal abuse, in the presence of co-workers, clients, opposing counsel and arbitrators on several occasions, and even struck her during an arbitration hearing while she was cross-examining a witness. Plaintiff alleges that this behavior stemmed from discriminatory animus, as Muallem directed it towards only plaintiff and other Black female employees.
Next, the court held that plaintiff sufficiently pleaded her retaliation claim since the complaint “provides defendants with fair notice of, defendants’ retaliatory conduct following plaintiff’s protected actions of filing various complaints and retaining counsel in response to defendants’ allegedly discriminatory acts” including, but not limited to, “defendants’ forcing plaintiff to move to an office in extremely close proximity to her alleged abuser Muallem while ignoring plaintiff’s reasonable plea not to do so.”
It also held that plaintiff sufficiently pleaded her aiding and abetting claims against defendant Sharon Gallo–Kotcher, noting that “[t]hough the complaint alleges that she too engaged in discriminatory and retaliatory conduct, it also alleges that she was aware of Muallem’s discriminatory conduct and did nothing to stop it.”
Finally, the court held that plaintiff sufficiently stated a claim under the Finally, plaintiff sufficiently stated a claim under the Gender–Motivated Violence Act, N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8–903, since “she alleged that Muallem physically harmed her by striking her on February 3, 2020, and that Muallem had directed animus against another Black female employee in the past.”