In Coley v. Lead Sec. Group Inc., No. 152480/2023, 2025 WL 317653 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Jan. 22, 2025), the court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s employment discrimination claims.
This decision illustrates the relatively low bar defining a plaintiff’s pleading obligation under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws:
On a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211, we must liberally construe the pleading and ‘accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory’.” (Himmelstein, McConnell, Gribben, Donoghue & Joseph, LLP v. Matthew Bender & Co., Inc., 37 N.Y.3d 169, 175 [2021], quoting Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 87-88 [1994]). “Whether a plaintiff can ultimately establish its allegations is not part of the calculus.” EBC I, Inc. v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 5 N.Y.3d 11, 19 [2005]).
Defendants’ motion was filed to dismiss Plaintiff’s initial complaint (NYSCEF Doc. 2). However, while the motion was pending, and prior to the motion being fully briefed and submitted, Plaintiff amended the complaint (NYSCEF Doc. 16) (CPLR § 3025[a]; CPLR § 3211[f]). Defendants’ were thus able to address the amended complaint in their reply memorandum (NYSCEF Doc. 19). Therefore, this Court will address the within motion as it applies to dismissing the amended complaint.
Upon review, allowing for a liberal construction of the amended complaint, and giving Plaintiff, as the law requires, the benefit of every favorable inference, the facts, as alleged by Plaintiff regarding the hostile work environment crated by Defendant Obinali’s alleged behavior and Plaintiff’s termination, allegedly due to the Defendants’ retaliation after Plaintiff reported/complained of such behavior, fall within the cognizable causes of action for discrimination and retaliation pursuant NYCHRL, NYSHRL and NYLL, as set forth in the amended complaint. (see Leon).
Based on this, the court held that dismissal was not warranted.