In Higgins v. Gladstone Gallery LLC, No. 150934/2022, 2024 WL 2244767 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County May 14, 2024), inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims of retaliation asserted under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.
From the decision:
In the amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that she complained to Gladstone on three occasions about conduct violating New York State and City laws: the disparity of pay between male and female employees, reverse discrimination, and an employee subject to sexual orientation discrimination.
Here, plaintiff alleges a claim for retaliation under both the NYCHRL and NYSHRL. The amended complaint alleges, in detail, incidents meant to constitute retaliatory conduct in response to her complaints, including additional incidents and specific statements allegedly made by defendants related to the claims of retaliation. This includes Falkenstein’s reactions to plaintiff’s comments about Gladstones’s treatment of her, and Gladstone’s effort to undermine her post-employment prospects with Studio. Indeed, the amended complaint alleges how Gladstone’s treatment of plaintiff deteriorated after she complained to Gladstone about certain violations of the law. For example, plaintiff alleges that after she reported defendants’ alleged violation of the labor laws, defendants made it appear as if she was unable or unwilling to perform her work, including by excluding her from meetings on tasks relevant to her duties. Plaintiff also alleges a causal connection between her protected activity and defendants’ conduct. Plaintiff asserts that one month prior to, and only a few days before her constructive discharge, she raised the issue of pay disparity between male and female employees to Falkenstein and Gladstone.
Thus, plaintiff alleges that she was engaged in a protected activity, and defendants were aware of that activity (see Farmer v Shake Shack Enterprises, LLC, 473 F. Supp. 3d 309, 331 [SD NY 2020] [“When an employee communicates to her employer a belief that the employer has engaged in … a form of employment discrimination, that communication virtually always constitutes the employee’s opposition to the activity”]). The amended complaint, which provides more specific dates and time frames as well as more incidents of defendants’ conduct than the original complaint, has made out causes of action related to retaliation.
Based on this, the court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims.