In Pierluissi v. City of New York, No. 153439/2023, 2025 WL 928908 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Mar. 26, 2025), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s race & national origin-based hostile work environment claims asserted under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.
In general, plaintiff alleges that defendants would regularly make offensive comments at roll calls; assign overtime to officers based exclusively on their race; give him “low” evaluations; deny him favorable conditions; give him more “disparate” assignments than his White colleagues; and give him less patrol hours per month than his White colleagues.
From the decision:
To establish a discrimination cause of action under the NYSHRL under a hostile work environment theory, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the plaintiff was subject to “ ‘inferior terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of the individual’s membership’ ” in a protected category (Elco v Aguiar, 226 AD3d 649, 651 [2d Dept 2024] [citation omitted]; see also Golston-Green v 184 AD3d at 41 n 3 [“(The NYSHRL) was amended to provide that harassment is actionable ‘regardless of whether such harassment would be considered severe or pervasive under precedent applied to harassment claims,’ and the plaintiff need demonstrate only that she or he was subjected to ‘inferior terms, conditions or privileges of employment’,” citing Executive Law § 296 (1) (h)]).
“ ‘[U]nder the [NYCHRL], liability for a harassment/hostile work environment claim is proved where a person provides that he or she was treated less well than other employees because of the relevant characteristic’ ” (Benitez v Jamaica Hosp. Med. Ctr., 230 AD3d 1284, 1285 [2d Dept 2024] [citation omitted]; see also Russell v New York Univ., 204 AD3d 577, 593 [1st Dept 2022]). “In other words, all that is required to sustain a NYCHRL “hostile work environment claim” is “unequal treatment” based upon membership in a protected class …. Questions of “severity” or “pervasiveness” go to damages only–not to liability” (Fattoruso v Hilton Grand Vacations Co., LLC, 873 F Supp 2d 569, 578 [SD NY 2012]), affd 525 F Appx 26 [2d Cir 2013]).
Plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded a discrimination cause of action under a hostile work environment theory under both NYSHRL and the NYCHRL because he has alleged that he was subjected to inferior terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of his race/nationality, as well as being treated less well than similarly situated white officers, due to his race. Specifically, he alleges that he has lost approximately $30,000 in lost income a year compared to his fellow white officers, because he was denied overtime, as well promotions to more lucrative positions, because of his race (see complaint, ¶¶ 76, 268 and 288). Plaintiff sets forth specific examples of white officers who are similarly situated to plaintiff, performing at or below his level, who were, unlike him, afforded the opportunity to be promoted, received greater overtime, and received positive evaluations which resulted in the ability to transfer to specialized and more lucrative units (see id., 77, 79, 90, 1-4-107)
Thus, plaintiff has sufficiently stated facts that could support a finding of a hostile work environment under both statutes (see Elco, 226 AD3d at 651 [finding that the plaintiff stated a cause of action under the NYSHRL, “as her evidentiary submissions and allegations in the complaint demonstrated that her superior officers subjected her to inferior employment conditions as a result of her [protected characteristic”]; Alshami v City University of New York, 203 AD3d 592, 592 [1st Dept 2022] [“Plaintiff has also stated a cause of action for hostile work environment, as his coworker’s multiple derogatory remarks about Yemenis, sometimes made in the presence of plaintiff’s supervisors, along with the allegedly unfounded write-ups, unfavorable assignments, and denial of a promotion, were sufficiently severe and pervasive to support that cause of action”]; Kwong v City of New York, 204 AD3d 422, 445 [1st Dept 2022] [finding hostile work environment claim under the NYCHRL stated a claim because, “[a]lthough most of the incidents of which plaintiff complains were relatively minor, at least the repeated mocking of plaintiff’s accent and pretending not to understand him, if true, could affect his ability to do his job and create an abusive working environment”]).
The court further held that plaintiff sufficiently stated claims for discrimination and retaliation.