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 retaliation claims asserted under the New York City Human Rights Law.
From the decision:
Defendants move to dismiss plaintiff’s retaliation claims. Under the NYCHRL, a plaintiff must allege that he/she participated in a protected activity known to defendants, defendants took an action that disadvantaged him, and a causal connection exists between the protected activity and the adverse action (Fletcher v Dakota, Inc., 99 AD3d 43, 51-52 [1st Dept 2012]). The employer’s action has to be “reasonably likely to deter a person from engaging in protected activity” (Williams v New York City Hous. Auth., 61 AD3d 62, 71 [1st Dept 2009]). The causal connection between a protected activity and a detrimental action is shown by temporal proximity between these actions or other facts in support of causation (Harrington v City of New York, 157 AD3d 582, 586 [1st Dept 2018]).
Defendants argue that plaintiff fails to plead retaliation because his allegation that he notified King of a report of sexual harassment on behalf of another officer, not for himself, in November 2021 is not a protected activity, citing Wright v City of N.Y., 2022 NY Slip Op 33942[U], *9 (Sup Ct, New York County 2022). Defendants also argue that even if, arguendo, plaintiff engaged in a protected activity, the complaint fails to connect it to the alleged retaliatory incidents. Defendants contend that allegations that plaintiff’s was subjected to random chores were not materially adverse changes in the terms and conditions of his employment.
Here, plaintiff adequately pleads that Kobel and King retaliated against plaintiff; that they knew of his protected activity (filing of a religious discrimination complaint and a sexual harassment complaint for another NYPD officer); and that plaintiff suffered by not receiving promotions and losing potential tangible job benefits like the loss of overtime pay, wages, and pension benefits (see Emengo v State, 143 AD3d 508, 509 [1st Dept 2016]); Alshami, 203 AD3d at 721). It is not critical that plaintiff complained about discrimination against another individual (see Gorzynski v JetBlue Airways Corp., 596 F3d 93, 110 [2d Cir 2010]). Plaintiff alleges that after filing discrimination complaints with Kobel he was shortly then passed over for promotions. Thus, a causal connection is inferred from the close temporal proximity of the immediate failure to promote (Pelepelin v City of New York, 189 AD3d 450, 452 [1st Dept 2020]). Also, plaintiff does not have to amplify the details of his comparators which can be substantiated during discovery (id.).
In addition, plaintiff’s claimed retaliatory consequences since filing the complaint for this case in November 2022 could “reasonably likely [be] to deter a person from engaging in protected activity” like complaining about harassment (Melendez v New York City Tr. Auth., 204 AD3d 542, 544 [1st Dept 2022] [citations omitted]). King began scrutinizing his work and rejecting his case findings (NYSCEF Doc. No. 15, ¶¶ 332-334). Plaintiff filed internal complaints with the NYPD and requested a transfer, which were purportedly ignored (see id. at ¶¶ 335-339). He was passed over for two promotions in January 2023 which led him to file a complaint with NYPD Internal Affairs that was allegedly ignored (see id. at ¶¶ 341-347). In March 2023, he was denied another promotion (id. at ¶ 348). At this juncture, the court need not determine whether defendants’ motivation for their conduct was retaliation or continued discrimination (O’Rourke, 176 AD3d at 518).
Accordingly, the court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss retaliation claims as to Kobel and King, and granted as to the remaining defendants.