In Dixon v. City of New York, No. 161050/2022, 2024 WL 580659 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Feb. 13, 2024), the court, inter alia, dismissed plaintiff’s retaliation claim asserted under the New York City Human Rights Law.
From the decision:
With respect to plaintiff’s retaliation claim, the court notes that plaintiff proffers no arguments sufficient to rebut defendants’ substantive arguments regarding the retaliation claim. To be sure, plaintiff fails to present a compelling rebuttal and instead merely reiterates the applicable standard. In contrast, defendants correctly underscore the fact that the complaint lacks a clear nexus between the accommodation requests made by plaintiff and any alleged retaliatory actions that would dissuade someone from engaging in protected activity. Specifically, the complaint fails to specify when plaintiff submitted accommodation requests or when the purported retaliatory conduct occurred, a crucial factor in establishing a causal connection, as established in Akinde v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 92 NYS3d 883, 883 (1st Dept 2019).
Furthermore, the complaint lacks specific details regarding when plaintiff voiced complaints of discrimination. The generic assertion that plaintiff “complained about the disparate treatment she was receiving” lacks specificity and fails to provide a timeframe for these alleged complaints (see Mamoon v. Dot Net Inc., 135 AD3d 656 [1st Dept 2016]). Likewise, plaintiff introduces, for the first time in opposition, an assertion that in January 2020, plaintiff sought a reasonable accommodation related to childcare arrangements. Subsequently, plaintiff claims that the NYPD subjected plaintiff to various adverse actions, such as unfounded discipline, exclusion from precinct events, denial of promotional opportunities, denied overtime, performance monitoring, and denied transfers to specialized units. However, plaintiff fails to provide specific dates or supporting details indicating that such actions were in response to plaintiff’s protected activity, rendering these assertions insufficient (Compl., NYSCEF Dkt No. 11, at ¶¶ 22, 24-25). Any subsequent conduct allegedly occurred, at the earliest, eight months later, which, in the most liberal view, is inadequate to substantiate a claim of retaliation (Miller v. N.Y.U., 2008 N.Y. Slip Op 33057[U]Miller v. N.Y.U., 2008 N.Y. Slip Op 33057[U], *27 [Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 2008]). Plaintiff further alleges in the complaint that in the first week of December 2021, plaintiff met with Deputy Commissioner of Internal Affairs Joseph Reznick to complain of discriminatory treatment, and subsequently, on December 7, 2021, the NYPD approved plaintiff’s transfer request to the Records Unit. However, the complaint and opposition lack any dates or supporting details suggesting that these actions were in response to plaintiff’s protected activity, and the deficiencies in this regard are fatal to plaintiff’s retaliation claim.
This decision, as such, is instructive as to the degree of specificity required when asserting a claim of unlawful retaliation.