In Montes v. City of New York, No. 158272/2023, 2025 WL 290440 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Jan. 21, 2025), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s retaliation claim asserted under the New York City Human Rights Law.
From the decision:
“Under [NYCHRL], it is unlawful to retaliate against an employee for opposing discriminatory practices.” Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 N.Y.3d 295, 312 (2004). To maintain a claim for retaliation under NYCHRL, Plaintiff must show: (1) they engaged in protected activity by opposing conduct prohibited thereunder, (2) Defendant was aware of Plaintiff’s participation in the activity, (3) Plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action based upon the activity, and (4) a causal connection existed between the protected activity and the adverse action. Id.
In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges he “engaged in a protected activity each time he asked for an accommodation related to his disability… [and] on each occasion… Defendant-Santucci would immediately harass Plaintiff… which caused him to suffer severe emotional distress.” (NYSCEF Doc. 13 pg. 10). The City argues that Plaintiff’s claim fails because he does not “specify how and when he was subsequently disadvantaged” and alleging that he was “stripped of a gun and shield” is not sufficient to establish an adverse employment action. (NYSCEF Doc. 14 pg. 15). Additionally, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s “generalized allegations – that he requested unspecified accommodations on unspecified dates” and was “directed to unspecified individuals or NYPD units” are also insufficient to show Defendants took an action that disadvantaged him. (NYSCEF Doc. 5 pg. 16).
This Court finds that requesting an accommodation related to his disability sufficiently alleges a protected activity. Furthermore, this Court is required to accept Plaintiff’s allegations as true – that he was subjected to threats of termination and that his gun and shield were indeed removed.
Based on this, the court held that plaintiff sufficiently pled facts to support a cognizable claim for retaliation.