In Campbell v. Authentic Brands Group LLC, No. 155160/2020, 2025 WL 104601 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Jan. 15, 2025), the court, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s cause of action for sex-based discrimination against certain defendants.
From the decision:
Campbell has sufficiently stated a cause of action for sex-based discrimination against Maven and Buccio pursuant to the NYCHRL. As discussed above, Campbell sufficiently alleges that Buccio did not humiliate male employees about their appearance or order them to change their physical appearance (NYSCEF Doc No. 25, amended complaint at ¶ 48). Campbell additionally alleges that Buccio touched her hair to assert power over her as a woman (id. at ¶ 58). Campbell alleges that because she made the reports, she lost work opportunities (id. at ¶¶ 63 & 76) and was ultimately one of only two members of her team who was terminated (the other being Rozwadowski, who also reported the alleged discriminatory conduct) (id. at ¶¶ 85 & 87). Based on these allegations, Campbell has adequately stated a claim for discrimination under the NYCHRL because she pleads that she experienced an unfavorable change and was treated less well than other employees on the basis of her sex or gender.
Buccio indicated that he was the director, ran the studio, and was the “boss” (NYSCEF Doc No. 25, amended complaint at ¶ 53). Defendants do not dispute these allegations or claim that Buccio’s statements were inaccurate. Because the NYCHRL is applicable to those employees who wield any ability to dictate the terms or conditions of a plaintiff’s employment, Campbell has sufficiently stated a claim for sex-based discrimination against Buccio. Further, Maven may be held liable under the NYCHRL since Buccio was its employee and exercised at least some supervisory responsibility over Campbell (see Administrative Code § 8-107 [13] [b] [1]).
Defendants’ assertions that this was merely a workplace dispute and constitutes petty slights and trivial inconveniences are premature at this pre-answer stage of litigation (Kaplan v New York City Dept. of Health and Mental Hygiene, 142 AD3d 1050, 1051 [2d Dept 2016] [“[A] contention that the behavior was a petty slight or trivial inconvenience constitutes an affirmative defense”], citing Williams, 61 AD3d at 80). Thus, affording the amended complaint a liberal construction and allowing Campbell the benefit of every favorable inference (see Sokol v Leader, 74 AD3d 1180, 1181 [2d Dept 2010]), Campbell has stated a cause of action alleging sex-based discrimination pursuant to the NYCHRL.
The court held, however that plaintiff failed to state a cause of action agains tother defendants, since she “has not adequately pled that they treated her less well than other employees because of her sex or gender.”