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 national origin discrimination claims under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws (and constructive discharge claim under the New York State Human Rights Law).
From the decision:
Although plaintiff did not oppose dismissal of the State HRL claims and City HRL national origin discrimination claim before Supreme Court, the court properly denied defendants’ motion as to those claims because they did not meet their prima facie burden of showing that plaintiff’s evidence and allegations raise no triable issues of fact (see Jacobsen v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 22 NY3d 824, 833 [2014]). Defendants challenge only plaintiff’s prima facie case and do not assert any legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the alleged discrimination until their reply brief. As for the City HRL claim based on national origin, Trahan’s remarks about plaintiff’s accent sufficiently raise an inference of discrimination for purposes of plaintiff’s minimal prima facie burden. As for the State HRL claims, although plaintiff did not allege or present evidence of a traditional adverse employment action (see Gordon v. Bayrock Sapir Org. LLC, 161 AD3d 480, 481 [1st Dept 2018]), her deposition testimony raises an issue of fact as to whether she was constructively discharged as a result of Trahan’s deliberately creating working conditions that were “so intolerable … that a reasonable person would have felt compelled to resign” (Bond, 215 AD3d at 470–471 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Accordingly, defendants’ motion was properly denied without considering the sufficiency of plaintiff’s opposition (see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853 [1985].
The court also denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff’s age discrimination and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims.