In Hussain v. The City of New York, No. 159834/2022, 2024 WL 4100982 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Sep. 06, 2024), the court, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims asserted under the New York City Human Rights Law.
From the decision:
Defendants move to dismiss plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims under the NYCHRL. To state a claim for hostile work environment under the liberal standard that governs the NYCHRL, a plaintiff need only allege facts showing that “[he] has been treated less well than other employees because of his protected status or that discrimination was one of the motivating factors for the defendant’s conduct” (Chin v New York City Hous. Auth., 106 AD3d 443, 445 [1st Dept 2013]). Defendants argue that plaintiff’s allegations of hostile work environment due to the conduct of Kobel, Briceno and Meisenholder are insufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss, citing Marsh USA Inc. v Hamby, 958 NYS2d 61, 61 (Sup Ct, New York County 2010). Defendants contend that King’s conduct towards plaintiff was not motivated by plaintiff’s protected status and that her comments are petty slights or trivial inconveniences.
The court accords plaintiff the benefit of every possible inference and finds that plaintiff states a cause of action for hostile work environment under the NYCHRL through his allegations that he was denied promotions that were given to light skinned, non-Muslim peers (see Valcarcel v First Quality Maintenance, 41 Misc 3d 1222[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51793[U], *10-11 [Sup Ct, Queens County 2013]). Also, plaintiff has sufficiently shown that he was treated less well than other employees because of his protected status through the remarks made by his superior officers that indicated their discriminatory views (see Eustache v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 228 AD3d 482, 483 [1st Dept 2024]). From the time King took over the OEEO until the present, plaintiff maintains that King repeatedly derided plaintiff for being Muslim and for not drinking as part of his religion (NYSCEF Doc. No. 15, ¶¶ 308, 309). King purportedly called plaintiff a “fake Muslim” while accusing him of not fasting during the month of Ramadan and she forced him to bring her pork (id. at ¶ 301-302). King allegedly changed plaintiff’s tour and forced him to drive her to bars on two occasions in July and August 2022, where she drank alcohol, knowing that plaintiff abstains as a practicing Muslim (id. at ¶¶ 313-318). Plaintiff also claims that King, who is Hispanic, berated, screamed, and yelled at plaintiff in front of plaintiff’s peers because he was investigating another Hispanic lieutenant (id. at ¶¶ 274-279). Plaintiff accurately compares his case to Alshami v City University of New York, 203 AD3d 592, 593 [1st Dept 2022]), in which the plaintiff sufficiently alleged a hostile work environment based on the claims that his coworkers made multiple derogatory remarks about him in the presence of his supervisors and that this led to denials of promotion. As plaintiff correctly argues, here, where his supervisors, who have denied him promotions, made derogatory comments about his religion, he has alleged a sufficiently severe and pervasive course of conduct to support a cause of action for hostile work environment (see id.). When plaintiff filed discrimination complaints with his supervisors in his capacity as a mandatory reporter, they allegedly assigned remedial tasks which support his allegation that he was treated “ ‘less well,’ at least in part to discriminatory reasons, under the NYCHRL” (Campbell v New York City Dept. of Educ., 200 AD3d 488, 489 [1st Dept 2021] quoting Hernandez v Kaisman, 103 AD3d 106, 114-115 [1st Dept 2012]).
Thus, the court concluded that defendants’ motion to dismiss the hostile work environment claim against defendants King and Kobel is denied, and granted as to the remaining defendants.