In Castillo v. Isakov et al, 22-cv-6888 (LJL), 2023 WL 6664552 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2023), the court, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s motion for default judgement on his discrimination claims (based on sexual orientation) under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.
The court summarized plaintiff’s allegations, as to this claim, as follows:
Castillo was also subject to discriminatory remarks by Abramov because of Castillo’s sexuality as a gay man. Abramov said he would not work alongside Castillo because of his sexuality, called him homophobic slurs (in English, Spanish, and Arabic), made false accusations against him, and made threats to Castillo and other employees that he would fire Castillo because of his sexual orientation. Abramov ultimately fired Castillo and replaced him with a straight man. After his termination, Castillo made “much effort” to find a new job until June 2021. He also alleges that, as a result of Abramov’s discrimination, he suffered extreme mental anguish, outrage, severe anxiety about his future, painful embarrassment, disruption of his personal life, and loss of the enjoyment of ordinary pleasures of everyday life. [Cleaned up.]
As to the law, the court explained:
Both the NYSHRL and NYCHRL proscribe discrimination based on sexual orientation. See N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(1)(a); N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(1)(a). To obtain a default judgment on a discrimination claim under the NYSHRL, a plaintiff must plead (1) that he is a member of a protected class, (2) that he was qualified for the position, (3) that he suffered an adverse employment action, and (4) that he can sustain a minimal burden of showing facts suggesting an inference of discriminatory motivation. Given that the NYCHRL imposes a lower standard of liability, if Plaintiff has stated a discrimination claim under the NYSHRL, he has necessarily stated a discrimination claim under the NYCHRL. Castillo is a gay man and thus belongs to a protected class. … He worked at the Entity Defendants for two years selling cell phones and phone plans prior to his termination. As a result, he has adequately pleaded that he was qualified for his position. … Castillo suffered an adverse employment action when Abramov terminated his employment. [Cleaned up.]
The court thus concluded that “Abramov repeatedly threatened to fire Castillo based on his sexuality, and subsequently made good on his discriminatory threats by firing Castillo and replacing him with a straight employee,” which “allegations amply suffice to raise an inference of discriminatory motivation.” [Cleaned up.]