In Roper, Kamala v. The City of New York, Frantz Souffrant, Joseph Antonio, No. 528198/2022, 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 51299(U), 2023 WL 8247927 (Sup Ct, Nov. 28, 2023), the court, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s retaliation claims asserted under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.
From the decision:
To state a claim for retaliation under NYSHRL, a plaintiff must show that: (1) she has engaged in protected activity; (2) her employer was aware that she participated in such activity; (3) she suffered an adverse employment action based upon her activity; and (4) there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action. Forrest, 3 NY3d at 312-313; Reichman, 179 AD3d at 1119. An adverse employment action, in the context of unlawful retaliation, is an action which may have “dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” Keceli v. Yonkers Racing Corp., 155 AD3d 1014 (2d Dept. 2017); Reichman, 179 AD3d at 1119. “The anti-retaliation provision protects an individual not from all retaliation, but from retaliation that produces an injury or harm” Reichman, 179 AD3d at 1119 (quoting Burlington N. and Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 [2006]).
NYCHRL offers broader protection. Albunio v. City of New York, 16 NY3d 472, 477-478 (2011); Reichman, 179 AD3d at 1119. Under NYCHRL, a plaintiff must show that: (1) she engaged in a protected activity as defined under the NYCHRL; (2) her employer was aware that she participated in such activity; (3) her employer engaged in conduct that was reasonably likely to deter a person from engaging in that protected activity; and (4) there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the alleged retaliatory conduct. Reichman, 179 AD3d at 1119 (citing Sanderson-Burgess v. City of New York, 173 AD3d 1233 [2d Dept. 2019]).
Plaintiff has sufficiently stated a cause of action for retaliation under both NYSHRL and NYCHRL. Plaintiff alleges that after making internal complaints of discrimination, she was negatively evaluated and “crafted” numerous times,31 given a less favorable schedule and duties,32 subjected to disciplinary actions in the form of a command disciplines,33 denied a promotion for which she qualified,34 her probationary period was extended and was placed on performance monitoring,35 and was ignored by her supervisor after the complaints.36 See Kassapian v. City of New York, 155 AD3d 851 (2d Dept. 2017) (plaintiff sufficiently stated a cause of action for unlawful retaliation where plaintiff was assigned double the normal workload, subjected to increased scrutiny of her work and reprimands for minor errors, and ultimately demoted after complaining to a supervisor regarding alleged sexual harassment).
Accordingly, the court denied defendants’ motion.