In Thompson v. The City of New York, No. 525109/2022, 2024 WL 2941866 (N.Y. Sup Ct, Kings County June 11, 2024), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s race-based discrimination claims asserted under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws. (The court also held that plaintiff sufficiently pleaded a hostile work environment claim under the City law; I wrote about that aspect of the court’s decision here.)
From the decision:
Plaintiff alleges discriminatory adverse employment action when she was presented with the option to resign and retain her pension benefits or be terminated, which would have resulted in the loss of said benefits. As an African-American woman, Plaintiff is a member of a protected class and was a qualified NYPD Officer, having been employed by the NYPD since 2007. In addition, she alleges adverse employment action when threatened with termination, including the concomitant loss of accrued pension benefits, unless she resigned. Plaintiff further points to several instances of fellow police officers who are similarly situated to plaintiff, but for race, that received lesser punishment for similar offenses to those Plaintiff was charged. In particular, she points to a white female officer who worked in the same police precinct as Plaintiff, who was dating an active gang member, and said officer tipped off her gang member boyfriend prior to the execution of a search warrant to avoid his arrest.16 That white officer was docked ten days pay and transferred to a different police precinct and not forced to resign or threatened with termination.17 Plaintiff also points to several other white male officers charged with associating with an individual known to the NYPD to be engaged in criminal activities and each were merely docked vacation days as their punishment and did not face the threat of termination and loss of pension benefits.
Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to provide sufficient detail to establish that said referenced NYPD officers are similarly situated to her in all relevant respects. However, at this juncture, affording Plaintiff all reasonable inferences and mindful of the generous notice pleading standard to be applied, her identification of a specific comparator, by name, who worked in the same precinct as she, and appears to have been charged with similar offenses, is sufficient to carry her burden. See Lloyd v Bear Stearns & Co., 2004 US Dist LEXIS 24914 *19 (SDNY 2004), quoting Lizardo v Denny’s, Inc., 270 F3d 94, 101 (2d Cir 2001) (“While their circumstances do not have to be identical, ‘there should be a reasonably close resemblance of facts and circumstances. What is key is that they be similar in significant respects’ ”); see e.g., Pelepelin v City of New York, 189 AD3d 450, 452 (1st Dept 2020) (holding that plaintiff “amply met” pleading burden on failure to promote claim by “naming as a comparator a specific individual whose details can be particularly verified during discovery”); Shah v Wilco Sys., Inc., 27 AD3d 169, 177-178 (1st Dept 2005). Accordingly, that branch of Defendant’s motion seeking to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim of race discrimination pursuant to the NYSHRL and NYCHRL is denied as the complaint contains factual allegations sufficient to allege an inference of racial discrimination.
The court, however, held that plaintiff failed to state claims of gender discrimination, since plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the referenced male officers were similarly situated.