In Benitez v Jamaica Hospital Medical Center, No. 2020-09593, 507954/17, 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 04539, 2024 WL 4281076 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept., Sep. 25, 2024), the court upheld the lower court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s pregnancy discrimination claim under the New York City Human Rights Law.
The court explained, and applied, the law as follows:
The New York City Human Rights Law provides, in relevant part, that “[i]t shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice … [f]or an employer or an employee or agent thereof, because of the actual or perceived … gender … of any person … to discriminate against such person in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment” (Administrative Code § 8–107[1][a][3]). “Discrimination on the basis of pregnancy is a form of gender discrimination” (Golston–Green v. City of New York, 184 A.D.3d 24, 34, 123 N.Y.S.3d 656; see Lefort v. Kingsbrook Jewish Med. Ctr., 203 A.D.3d 708, 709, 164 N.Y.S.3d 183).
“[U]nder the City Human Rights Law, liability for a harassment/hostile work environment claim is proven where a plaintiff proves that he or she was treated less well than other employees because of the relevant characteristic” (Nelson v. HSBC Bank USA, 87 A.D.3d 995, 999, 929 N.Y.S.2d 259; see Domingo v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., 219 A.D.3d 964, 966, 195 N.Y.S.3d 751).
The conduct alleged, however, must exceed “what a reasonable victim of discrimination would consider petty slights and trivial inconveniences” (Williams v. New York City Hous. Auth., 61 A.D.3d 62, 80, 872 N.Y.S.2d 27 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Bilitch v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 194 A.D.3d 999, 1003, 148 N.Y.S.3d 238; Golston–Green v. City of New York, 184 A.D.3d at 42–43, 123 N.Y.S.3d 656; Reichman v. City of New York, 179 A.D.3d 1115, 1118, 117 N.Y.S.3d 280), and “mere personality conflicts” will not suffice to establish a hostile work environment (Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 N.Y.3d 295, 309, 786 N.Y.S.2d 382, 819 N.E.2d 998; see Bilitch v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 194 A.D.3d at 1003, 148 N.Y.S.3d 238; Reichman v. City of New York, 179 A.D.3d at 1118, 117 N.Y.S.3d 280).
Here, the cause of action alleging hostile work environment was premised on a single comment by the plaintiff’s supervisor purportedly relating to her pregnancy. While a single comment may suffice to prove a hostile work environment (see Diggs v. Oscar De La Renta, LLC, 169 A.D.3d 1003, 1004, 94 N.Y.S.3d 574), that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside so much of the jury verdict as was in favor of the plaintiff on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging hostile work environment and for judgment as a matter of law dismissing that cause of action was properly granted since a reasonable person would consider the complained-of conduct nothing more than petty slights and trivial inconveniences.
[Internal quotation marks omitted.]
Of note, while this decision ultimately comes out against plaintiff, it confirms that a single comment may – under certain circumstances not present here – suffice to make out a hostile work environment claim.