In Lopez v Trahan, No. 155637/20, 2024-04221, 3523, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 00274, 2025 WL 208694 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept., Jan. 16, 2025), the Appellate Division, First Department, inter alia, unanimously affirmed the lower court’s denial of defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s age discrimination claim under the New York City Human Rights Law.
From the decision:
In support of their motion for summary judgment, defendants submitted the transcript of plaintiff’s deposition in which she testified that defendant Russell F. Trahan, her employer, routinely yelled at and berated her, called her “old,” “slow,” an “old hag,” and physically assaulted her on more than one occasion. She also testified that Trahan “ma[de] fun of” her “Puerto Rican accent” and told her, when she spoke Spanish, that “[y]ou Puerto Ricans don’t know how to talk” and “talk so fast.” In opposition, plaintiff submitted affidavits of three coworkers and a regular client who corroborated much of her testimony, as well as medical records and a video supporting her allegations.
The court properly denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s City HRL claim based on age discrimination, as the evidence, including plaintiff’s own testimony as corroborated by three witnesses, raises issues of fact as to whether plaintiff was “treated differently or less well” than other employees because of her age (Spiegel v. 226 Realty LLC, 231 AD3d 562, 565 [1st Dept 2024] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see also Krebaum v. Capital One, N.A., 138 AD3d 528, 528 [1st Dept 2016]).
Contrary to defendants’ contention, plaintiff does not need to show an adverse employment action in order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the City HRL (see Bond v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 215 AD3d 469, 470 [1st Dept 2023]).
The court also held that defendants failed to demonstrate entitlement to summary judgment on plaintiff’s national origin discrimination and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims.