In Dixon v. City of New York, No. 161050/2022, 2024 WL 1995142 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County May 6, 2024), the court, inter alia, held that plaintiff sufficiently alleged claims of race discrimination, gender discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, and religious discrimination (failure to accommodate).
As to plaintiff’s discrimination claims, the court explained that “[t]o state a discrimination, claim under the NYCHRL, a plaintiff must allege “(l) that he/she is a member of a protected class, (2) that he/she was qualified for the position, (3) that he/she was treated differently or worse than other employees, and (4) that the adverse or different treatment occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination.”
Applying the law, the court explained:
Indeed, Plaintiff pleaded that she is a member of a protected class in that she is a woman. In addition, she alleges that she always performed her job duties as a detective in a satisfactory manner. Plaintiff further pleads with particularity that she was denied overtime, lucrative transfers, and promotions due to her gender while similarly situated male police officers were treated differently. These paragraphs are enough to defeat defendants’ motion as to the gender claim (compare Eric H Green & Assocs. v. Jennings Tolbert, 306 A.D.2d 3 [1st Dept 2003] [finding of discrimination supported by evidence that complainant’s request for leave was denied while her male counterparts were permitted to take leave], with Tucker v. Battery Park City Parks Corp., 227 AD2d 318 [1st Dept 1996] [discrimination claim dismissed as plaintiff failed to allege disparate treatment of similarly-situated employees]).
Plaintiff has also sufficiently pleaded race discrimination. Plaintiff pleads that she is a member of a protected class in that she is Black. Again, she further asserts that she always performed her job duties as a detective in a satisfactory manner. Plaintiff then pleads with particularity that she was denied overtime, lucrative transfers, and promotions due to her race. Plaintiff further pleads numerous examples of unwarranted discipline (Mirro v. City of New York, 159 AD3d 356 [2d Dept 2018][“Allegations that disciplinary charges were based on discrimination sufficient to state cause of action”], like the exclusion from precinct events (see Walker v. Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, 220 AD32 554 [1st Dept 2023]).
This decision is, as such, instructive as to the necessary specificity of allegations required to overcome a motion to dismiss when pleading a discrimination claim.