In Luo v. AIK Renovation Inc. et al, 23-cv-5878 (LJL), 2023 WL 8113437 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2023), the court, inter alia, held that plaintiff sufficiently alleged employment discrimination (disparate treatment) based on his Chinese descent, and denied defendant’s motion to dismiss.
From the decision:
Plaintiff has pleaded sufficient facts to give rise to a claim for disparate treatment under federal, state, and city law. It is not disputed that Plaintiff, a male of Chinese descent, has sufficiently pleaded that he was a member of a protected class, that he was qualified for the position he sought, and that he suffered an adverse employment action. See Dkt. No. 13 at 1. His employment was terminated without the final two weeks of work he was promised. Dkt No. 3 ¶ 23. He also has alleged facts that plausibly support at least a minimal inference of discrimination. He alleges that his employment was terminated shortly after his immediate supervisor and one of the leaders of AIK made a derogatory and stereotyped comment about persons of Chinese descent and that he was replaced by a non-Chinese, white person. Id. ¶¶ 15, 17, 22. Plaintiff also alleges that Nejasmic, Renosis, and other AIK leaders—who are white Eastern-European immigrants or their descendants, id. ¶ 5—persistently made derogatory comments about persons who were not members of their ethnic group and who were members of minorities, id. ¶¶ 16–17. He further alleges that he was terminated without his employer even considering the defenses to the accusations that had been made against him. Id. ¶ 22. Those allegations, viewed collectively, are sufficient to give rise to an inference that the termination of Plaintiff’s employment was based on his race and national origin. See Yang v. Dep’t of Educ. of the City of New York, 2016 WL 4028131, at *7–8 (E.D.N.Y. July 26, 2016); Downes v. Potter, 2006 WL 2092479, at *12 (E.D.N.Y. July 26, 2006) (Bianco, J.); see also Tolbert v. Smith, 790 F.3d 427, 438 (2d Cir. 2015) (“Statements showing an employer’s racial bias … are sufficient to support a prima facie case of discrimination.”).
The court also held that plaintiff sufficiently alleged claims for hostile work environment.