In Denson v. Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., No. 101616/2017, 2025 WL 503245 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Feb. 14, 2025), the court, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s sex-based hostile work environment asserted under the New York City Human Rights Law.
From the decision:
Plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims under the NYCHRL must be dismissed because she fails to present any evidence that any Campaign workers ever treated her less favorably than other employees because of her gender, beyond her own speculative assertions (see e.g. Ellison v Chartis Claims, Inc., 178 AD3d 665, 669 [2d Dept 2019] [affirming dismissal of race discrimination claim under the NYCHRL because “(t)he plaintiff offered nothing but speculation that any of the defendants’ challenged actions were motivated, even in part, by unlawful discrimination or retaliation, and such speculation is insufficient to defeat summary judgment”]; Suri v Grey Global Group, Inc., 164 AD3d 108, 135 [1st Dept 2018] [rejecting plaintiffs “speculative and conclusory” assertion that she was denied a promotion for discriminatory reasons]; see generally Dickerson v Health Mgt. Corp. of Am., 21 AD3d 326, 329 [1st Dept 2005] [“Conclusory allegations of discrimination are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment”]).
Here, plaintiff’s assertions of harassment pertain primarily to her former supervisor, Camilo Sandoval, who plaintiff reported to for less than two weeks (plaintiff’s dep, at 113). However, these assertions consist of nothing more than alleged petty and trivial conduct on the part of Mr. Sandoval, which plaintiff merely speculates was related to her gender. For instance, plaintiff asserts that, soon after she was promoted out of Mr. Sandoval’s department, Mr. Sandoval asked plaintiff’s direct report, Ron Wilson, the following question in plaintiff’s presence: “why are you letting your sheep wander?” (id. at 73- 74). Plaintiff further asserts that Mr. Sandoval also told her: “I hired you and I can fire you” (id. at 73-74, 98-100). Neither of these remarks are gender-based on their face and, even if they were, they are not actionable, as a reasonable person would consider them nothing more than petty slights and trivial inconveniences (see e.g. Edun v Envirosell, Inc., 2019 NY Misc LEXIS 2491, * 17-18 [Sup Ct, NY County 2019] [dismissing hostile work environment claims under the NYCHRL, finding that references to plaintiff as a “rookie” and “lady;” asking plaintiff whether she was “going to join a terrorist organization;” and asking plaintiff whether she was sending money to her parents in Mauritius so they can “keep coconuts on the table” were “petty slights” and “stray remarks”]; Buchwald v Silverman Shin & Bryne PLLC, Index No. 155828/2013 [Sup Ct, NY County, July 20, 2016], affd 149 AD3d 560 [1st Dept 2017] [affirming dismissal of hostile work environment claim under the NYCHRL, deeming supervisor’s repeated references to plaintiff as a “nut,” “nutjob,” and “lunatic” over a five-month period to be “petty slights”]).
Plaintiff also asserts that, after her promotion, Mr. Sandoval “laid down” on a couch “with his crouch pointed towards [her]” (plaintiff’s dep, at 96-98). However, plaintiff admits that Mr. Sandoval was not in a “sexual position” (id.), and acknowledges that Mr. Sandoval did not make any sexually inappropriate comments to her while he was on the couch (or at any other time during her employment with the Campaign) (id.). Accordingly, there is no evidence to support plaintiff’s speculative assertions that Mr. Sandoval’s conduct was gender-based in any way, and, even it was, it was also far too trivial to constitute a hostile work environment as a matter of law (see e.g. Adams v City of New York, 837 F Supp 2d 108, 128-29 [ED NY 2011] [female correction officer’s claim that her male supervisor invited her into his office while he was shirtless and with his pants unzipped was “boorish and offensive,” but too trivial and petty to constitute a hostile work environment under the NYCHRL]; Magnoni v Smith & Laquercia, LLP, 701 F Supp 2d 497, 506 [SD NY 2010] [plaintiff could not sustain sexual harassment claim under the NYCHRL where her supervisor “(told her) a crude anecdote from his sex life with another woman, and occasionally refer(red) to (plaintiff) as voluptuous and knock(ed) her knee”]), affd 483 Fed Appx 613 [2d Cir 2012]).
Plaintiff also asserts that Stephen Miller made a “condescending” comment to her while she was sitting at a table on an airplane, namely, that she was not permitted to sit at the table because it was a “workspace” (plaintiff’s dep, at 102-106). However, plaintiff admits that she does not know why Mr. Miller made this comment to her, nor could she explain how this comment was directed towards her gender, especially considering that the comment was only directed to her even though she was sitting next to two other women at the time (id.). Moreover, this petty and trivial comment is also non-actionable (see Edun v Envirosell, Inc., 2019 NY Misc LEXIS 2491, at * 17-18; Buchwald v Silverman Shin & Bryne PLLC, Index No. 155828/2013).
The court further held that plaintiff’s “speculative assertions of gender-based animus on the part of Mr. Sandoval are further undermined by her own admissions,” including that “plaintiff’s assertion that Mr. Sandoval harassed her during her interview because of her gender is refuted by her admission that she has no idea how Mr. Sandoval treated men during their interviews.”