In Delaney v. New York City Health & Hosps., 2024 NY Slip Op 32769(U), Index No. 525072/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Kings Cty. August 2, 2024), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims of gender and race discrimination asserted under the New York State Human Rights Law.
Plaintiff’s allegations included the following:
4. On or about 2-2017, pursuant to contract, through on or about April 2019, plaintiff was employed with defendant NYCHHC as an Assistant Personnel Director of Home Care.
5. On or about April 2019, and at all times relevant herein, plaintiff was and is an African-American Female, and thereby belonged to a protected class(es), and defendants took adverse action(s) against plaintiff because of her protected class(es), and at all times relevant herein, there existed a causal connection between plaintiffs belonging to protected class, and defendants, herein below described, wrongful and/or intentional and/or egregiously racially and/or gender motivated, animus towards the plaintiff, and said retaliation constitutes discrimination against plaintiff, in a term or condition of her employment with defendant NYCHHC
6. During the time plaintiff was so employed by defendant NYCHHC, defendants made repeated, pervasive, motivated by discriminatory bias and/or animus, hostile, and/or harassing and/or derogatory, and/or calumnious and/or slanderous comments about the fact that plaintiff was an African-American Female, and defendants, and each of them, created and/or implemented and/or maintained, without bona fide occupational qualification and/or privilege, discrimination in a term or condition of employment, against the plaintiff, because of her gender and/or race.
7. On or about October 2019, and-at all times relevant herein, the acts of discrimination perpetrated by defendants, against plaintiff because of her race and/or gender, included, and were not limited to: (a) Refusing to pay her ove1iime benefits, at a proper rate of compensation; (b) requiring her to use up vacation time benefits, for medical reasons, whereas individuals who were not African-American nor Female, did not have to do so; (c) refusing to promote her, whereas non-African-American, non-female employees, who were less qualified than plaintiff, were so promoted; and (d) terminating her from employment.
11. Defendant NYCHHC’s termination of plaintiff from her employment was without good and/or just cause, and plaintiff at all times relevant herein, and up to and including April 2019 substantially performed under contract.
The court concluded that “[a]ccepting the facts as alleged in the amended complaint as true, and according the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference …, the complaint sufficiently alleges that an adverse employment action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination based on the plaintiffs gender and/or race.”
It also held that plaintiff adequately pleaded a cause of action for breach of contract, but not for a hostile work environment.