In Berrios v. Rose Associates, Inc., No. 652417/2021, 2024 WL 5182598 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Dec. 19, 2024), a housing discrimination case, the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claims of retaliation asserted under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.
From the decision:
To prove retaliation, a plaintiff needs to first establish a protected activity, defendant’s knowledge of the protected activity, an adverse action and a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action. See Fletcher v. Dakota, Inc., 99 A.D.3d 43, 51-52 (1st Dep’t 2012). The plaintiff’s burden at the prima facie stage is de minimis. See Hollande Apts. & Health Club, LLC v. Bonesteel, 173 A.D.3d 55, 69 (3d Dep’t 2019). If the plaintiff presents a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to put forth a legitimate, non-retaliatory, reason for its actions. See Brightman v. Prison Health Serv., Inc., 108 A.D.3d 739, 740 (2d Dep’t 2013). This then shifts the burden back to the plaintiff to show the proffered reason was pretext for retaliation “by demonstrating weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, or contradictions in the employer’s proffered legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for its action.” Kwan v. Andalex Grp., LLC, 737 F.3d 834, 846 (2d Cir. 2013); see also Brightman, 108 A.D.3d at 741.
Thus, to succeed on its motion Defendant “… must demonstrate that (P)laintiff cannot make out a prima facie case of retaliation or, having offered legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons for the challenged actions, that there exists no triable issues of fact as to whether [its] explanations were pretextual.” Delrio v. City of New York, 91 A.D.3d 900, 901 (2d Dep’t 2012).
The Court finds Defendant has failed to meet its burden. It is undisputed that Plaintiffs engaged in a protected activity by complaining about the Super’s alleged discriminatory comment. It is also not disputed that Plaintiffs had issues with repairs and services, and that this took place after the Plaintiffs complained. Defendants assert that many tenants in the building had problems with obtaining services and repairs, but this general allegation does not amount to a legitimate, non-retaliatory, reason for its actions.
Based on this, the court held that the defendant failed to carry its summary judgment burden.