In Philippe v. The City of New York, No. 151444/2023, 2024 WL 4850897 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Nov. 15, 2024), the court dismissed plaintiff’s claims of employment discrimination asserted under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.
This decision provides instructive guidance as to how courts apply the general rule of “notice pleading” to such claims. From the decision:
On a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, the “court must give the complaint a liberal construction, accept the allegations as true, and, providing plaintiffs with the benefit of every favorable inference, examine the adequacy of the pleadings” (Moore Charitable Found. v PJT Partners, Inc., 40 NY3d 150, 153 [2023]). “Whether the plaintiff can ultimately establish its allegations is not part of the calculus” (J.P. Morgan Sec. Inc. v Vigilant Ins. Co., 21 NY3d 324, 334 [2013] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). However, “conclusory allegations – claims consisting of bare legal conclusions with no factual specificity – are insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss” (Godfrey v Spano, 13 NY3d 358, 373 [2009]).
“[E]mployment discrimination claims brought under the City and State HRLs are generally analyzed under a lenient notice pleading standard, whereby the plaintiff need not plead specific facts, but must only give the defendants ‘fair notice’ of the nature and grounds of the claims” (Walker v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 220 AD3d 554, 554 [1st Dept 2023], quoting Petit v Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 177 AD3d 402, 403 [1st Dept 2019]; see Vig v New York Hairspray Co., L.P., 67 AD3d 140, 145 [1st Dept 2009]). Under this standard, the complaint must allege: (1) plaintiff is a member of a protected class; (2) he or she was subjected to an adverse employment action under the State HRL or treated less well than other employees under the City HRL; and (3) the adverse or different treatment was made under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination (see Etienne v MTA N. Y. City Tr. Auth., 2024 NY Slip Op 00372 [1st Dept 2024]; Campbell v New York City Dept. of Educ., 200 AD3d 488, 489 [1st Dept 2021]).
Here, plaintiff fails to adequately allege that he was treated differently or worse than his colleagues of other races under similar circumstances or that the treatment occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination.
Accordingly, based on the documents listed by the court (as well as oral arguments heard before the court), the court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, and dismissed the case with prejudice.