In Anil v. The City of New York, No. 157736/2022, 2023 WL 7130790 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Oct. 23, 2023), the court, inter alia, held that plaintiff sufficiently alleged age discrimination and retaliation under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.
As to plaintiff’s state law claim, the court explained:
Plaintiff has adequately plead that she is a member of a protected class – she claims that she is discriminated against on the basis of her gender, age, national origin, and religion. Likewise, plaintiff has set forth allegations that she is qualified for the position for which she has been denied promotion in that she passed the civil service exam for the position, has a Ph.D., and has been performing the duties of the position.
Plaintiff has sufficiently plead that she suffered an adverse employment action in the form of failure to promote. “[F]ailure to promote falls within the core activities encompassed by the term ‘adverse actions’ ” (Treglia v Town of Manlius, 313 F3d 713, 720 [2d Cir 2002]; see also Santiago-Mendez v City of New York, 136 AD3d 428, 429 [1st Dept 2016]).
For pleading purposes, plaintiff has set forth sufficient allegations that the alleged discriminatory practice occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of age discrimination. As set forth hereinabove, plaintiff’s manager has allegedly stated a preference for hiring millennials. Plaintiff has further alleged that many younger, less experienced, co-workers have been promoted to permanent positions while plaintiff has been denied promotions. This suffices, for pleading purposes, to state a claim for age discrimination.
Furthermore, plaintiff has sufficiently plead retaliation. Dr. Anil indicates that she filed EEO complaints against her supervisor Charles Winkler and that defendant Kenton stopped considering plaintiff for promotion after learning of the EEO complaints. Accordingly, for failures to promote occurring after the filing of the October 11, 2019, EEO complaint, plaintiff has sufficiently plead retaliation.
Having determined that plaintiff’s claims were sufficiently alleged under the New York State Human Rights Law, it necessarily followed that plaintiff likewise sufficiently alleged such claims under the “more liberal” New York City Human Rights Law.