In James v. Disney Studios Content, No. 159201/2022, 2025 WL 257207 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Jan. 21, 2025), the court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim of retaliation under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws, on the ground that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(2).
The court summarized the facts as follows:
This is an employment discrimination action brought by Plaintiff pursuant to the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”) and New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”). Plaintiff was an actor employed by Disney in the North American tour of the musical production of Lion King. Plaintiff alleges he worked with Kaplan, who was the director of the tour. Plaintiff further alleges that Kaplan engaged in quid-pro-quo invitations and engaged in sexual harassment. Throughout March and April 2019, Plaintiff allegedly rebuffed several invitations from Kaplan to go out for drinks and dates. Plaintiff claims Kaplan retaliated against him for rebuffing Kaplan’s requests. Plaintiff allegedly complained about the retaliation and on March 9th, 2020, Plaintiff’s first day of paternity leave, he was allegedly terminated. Plaintiff alleges this was retaliation for his complaints about Kaplan. … Plaintiff admitted during his deposition that at all relevant times he maintained a permanent address in Illinois. The only stop Plaintiff’s tour made in New York was in Rochester, and Plaintiff could not recall whether any allegedly discriminatory acts took place there. When Plaintiff was terminated, he was in Chicago on paternity leave.
In response to defendant’s motion to dismiss, plaintiff opposed and cross-moved to amend the complaint. Plaintiff argued that defendants and plaintiff’s employment “were headquartered in New York City and Plaintiff was directed to address any human resource issues to Disney’s New York City office” and sought to amend his complaint to allege that he was given a mailbox at Disney’s New York City office and paychecks were issued to his New York City address.
The court summarized the “impact test” as follows:
As held by the Court of Appeals, the purpose of the NYSHRL and NYCHRL is to “protect ‘inhabitants’ and persons ‘within’ the state” (Hoffman v Parade Publications, 15 NY3d 285, 291 [2010]). The Court of Appeals therefore requires that “a nonresident plead and prove that the alleged discriminatory conduct had an impact in New York” (id.).
The Court of Appeals has recently expanded the protections of the NYSHRL and NYCHRL to out of state residents in failure to promote and failure to hire cases based on a liberal construction of “inhabitants” and “individual within this state” found in Executive Law § 290(3) and Administrative Code § 8-1011 (see Syeed v Bloomberg L.P., 41 NY3d 446, 453 [2024]). Indeed, the Hoffman Court held that “the impact requirement does not exclude all nonresidents from [the] protection” of the Human Rights Law (15 NY3d 285, 290 [2010]). The Syeed Court held that a nonresident satisfies the impact requirement if they can show they were “working in New York” (41 NY3d at 451). The Syeed Court likewise considered the impact of discrimination not just to the individual Plaintiff, but New York State and New York City, for they “are deprived of economic and civic contributions from individuals” discriminated against, “along with the more diverse workforces and communities that the individuals would advance.”
The First Department has likewise recognized the societal impact of discrimination, remarking that “State and City Human Rights Laws are meant to deter discriminatory behavior by New York employers, as well as to compensate the employees impacted by that behavior” (Pakniat v Moor, 192 AD3d 596, 597 [1st Dept 2021]). The Pakniat Court recognized the need for a more flexible “impact” test given the expanded “diaspora of remote workers, many of them laboring in other states for New York firms” (Id.).
The court next applied the law to the unique facts of this case:
Given the evolving legal landscape and unique employment status of a touring actor employed by a New York City based production company, the Court finds there is sufficient evidence that there is an impact within New York to invoke subject matter jurisdiction under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL. Interpreting “individual within this state” as broadly as possible, as this Court must, the Court finds that Defendants’ issuance of a mailing address to Plaintiff in New York City, along with listing his “Organization Point” as New York City to constitute sufficient presence within New York State and New York City to invoke the NYSHRL and NYCHRL (see NYSCEF Doc. 35). Indeed, Defendants themselves mailed paychecks to Plaintiff’s address, designated by Defendants, within New York City.
Moreover, Kaplan’s application of the “impact test” is too narrow. The impact of the discrimination was felt in New York because New York was required to issue unemployment checks to Plaintiff allegedly due to Kaplan’s discriminatory behavior. This is not a case like Hoffman where the plaintiff was not a resident of New York and did not work in New York, here the salient facts indicate Plaintiff was indeed employed in New York and was provided a New York City based work address. Because Plaintiff’s New York City based employment was terminated as a result of allegedly discriminatory conduct, and New York State was required to pay unemployment insurance to Plaintiff as a result of his termination, there are sufficient facts for Plaintiff to invoke operation of the NYSHRL and NYCHRL.
Accordingly, the court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The court furthermore granted plaintiff leave to amend his complaint, rejecting defendant’s contention that doing so will delay the case and noting that plaintiff asserts no new causes of action and seeks only to bolster his factual allegations.