In Huntley v. City of New York, No. 151697/2023, 2024 WL 3070013 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County June 20, 2024), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s gender-based discrimination and hostile work environment claims asserted under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.
From the decision:
Here, Plaintiff pleads that she is a woman (a protected class) and she performed her job in a satisfactory or above satisfactory manner. Plaintiff further pleads with particularity that men were given favorable treatment over women which included, but is not limited to, lucrative specialized assignments, overtime, desired assignments, and tours. Plaintiff’s complaint pleads numerous comparators to Plaintiff who are fellow lieutenants who have the same job duties and responsibilities as Plaintiff. These officers include, but are no way limited to, Lieutenant Charles, Lieutenant Amill, and Lieutenant Bowman. Plaintiff pleads that these male sergeants were not yelled or cursed at, received greater employment opportunities such as more overtime, and received de facto promotions they were less qualified for than Plaintiff. Plaintiff is similarly situated in every way to these male officers except for her gender despite the allegations by the City. Plaintiff further contends that she was even more qualified than these officers on multiple occasions. As a result, Plaintiff asserts that she earns significantly less income than her male peers, which equates to as much as $7,500 less a month because of disparate transfers and minimal overtime. Further, Plaintiff purports to have lost over $4,000 a year in night differential pay due to her discriminatory transfer by the City. Plaintiff states unequivocally that these same adverse actions are not taken against her male colleagues who are similarly situated to Plaintiff in every way. Each of these, alone, are more than a petty slight and trivial inconvenience. As such, Plaintiff easily meets her burden for her gender discrimination claims having identified similarly situated comparators who received greater benefits.
The court thus concluded that, “[i]n applying the liberal pleading standard, plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded her discrimination and hostile workplace claims.”