In Wu v. Wunderkind Corp., No. 155165/2023, 2024 WL 4307855 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Sep. 26, 2024), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims of race & national origin discrimination asserted under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.
From the decision:
That branch of defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s race and national origin discrimination claims under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL is denied. To state such a claim, plaintiff must allege that: (1) he is a member of a protected class, (2) he was qualified for the position, (3) he was adversely or differently treated based on his race in a way that disadvantaged him; and (4) that the adverse . . . treatment occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination”1 (See Hosking v Mem. Sloan-Kettering Cancer Ctr.. 186 AD3d 58, 62 [1st Dept 20201; see also Harrington v City of New York, 157 AD3d 582 [1st Dept 2018]).
“[C]ircumstances that give rise to an inference of discrimination . . . include actions or remarks made by decisionmakers that could be viewed as reflecting a discriminatory animus and preferential treatment given to employees outside the protected class” (Brown v New York City Dept. of Educ., 2023 NY Slip Op 30106[U], 22 [Sup Ct, NY County 2023]).Here, it is undisputed that plaintiff is a member of a protected class, that he was qualified for his position, and that he was [terminated] on May 3, 2023. Defendant argues only that plaintiff has not alleged that his termination occurred under circumstances permitting an inference of discrimination. The Court disagrees. Plaintiff has satisfied this standard through his allegations that defendant’s managers made negative comments about his accent (See Demir v Sandoz Inc., 155 AD3d 464, 466 [1st Dept 2017] [plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to show that she was subjected to adverse employment actions under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination, including, inter alia, that she and other women, including other Muslim women, had been subjected to abusive and derogatory remarks and questions about her accent]), that his position was filled by someone outside of his protected class (See e.g., Ruiz v Armstrong, 207 NYS3d 374 [Sup Ct, Kings County 2024]), and that he was subjected to a pretextual investigation based on false allegations (See Petit v Dept. of Educ. of City of New York, 177 AD3d 402, 403 [1st Dept 2019] [guidance counselor’s allegations that school principal falsely accused him of misconduct, subjecting him to an Office of Special Investigations investigation, during which principal falsely accused plaintiff of being a voodoo priest supported denial of motion to dismiss employment discrimination claim]; see also Hunter v Barnes & Noble. Inc. 2023 NY Slip Op 30638[U], 6-7 [Sup Ct, NY County 2023] [“Plaintiff states a cause of action for race-based harassment under the NYSHRL by alleging … that he was subjected to a pretextual investigation that relied on defamatory false documents and that he was made ineligible to receive sales commissions”]).
Defendant’s argument that it had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating plaintiff’s employment, based upon his repeated communications with various former Wunderkind employees despite instructions not to do so, “presents a potential rebuttal argument to a prima facie case of employment discrimination, which is misplaced at this early procedural juncture” (Petit v Dept. of Educ. of City of New York, 177 AD3d 402, 404 [1st Dept 2019] [internal citations omitted]).
Based on this, the court held that denial of defendants’ motion was warranted.