In Williams v. Breaking Ground Housing Development Fund Corporation et al, 22-cv-8715 (AS), 2024 WL 2882122 (S.D.N.Y. June 6, 2024), the court, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s retaliation claims asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
From the decision:
The complaint, construed liberally, also alleges that Williams was fired in retaliation for (1) reporting sexual harassment and (2) reporting safety concerns to his manager, supervisor, and OSHA. The first claim falls under Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL. The second claim falls under New York Labor Law. Because Defendants entirely fail to address the second claim in their motion, that claim survives.
To establish a prima facie case for retaliation a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) the employee was engaged in protected activity; (2) the employer was aware of that activity; (3) the employee suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. Distasio v. Perkin Elmer Corp., 157 F.3d 55, 66 (2d Cir. 1998). Williams alleges that he complained to Wagner that Cologne was sexually harassing him, that Wagner (who was Cologne’s friend and roommate) laughed off his concerns, that Cologne then falsely accused him of touching her, and that Wagner then fired him for touching Cologne. Dkt. 34 at 11, 19, 24, 27–28. Once again, Defendants’ motion to dismiss entirely fails to engage with these facts.
Accordingly, the court denied the motion to dismiss, “insofar as it alleges that Williams was fired in retaliation for engaging in protected activity.”