In Young v. Bessemer Trust Co., N.A, No. 154722/2020, 2025 WL 928439 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Mar. 25, 2025), the court, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s race/national origin discrimination claims asserted under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.
From the decision:
The Court finds that Young meets his burden under the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL as the parties’ submissions raise questions of fact as to whether Young’s race and national origin played a role in his termination. Young asserts that after he and Conenna saw the “Wuhan Restriction Zone” sign on Conenna’s desk in January 2020, Conenna laughed and smiled, threw out the sign and claim it was just a joke. In light of what “Wuhan” signified in January 2020,1 and of Conenna’s response to the sign, there are questions of fact that could permit a jury to find that Young’s workplace was significantly altered for him. The fact that another temporary consultant working at Bessemer placed the sign as a “practical joke,” and that Conenna found it funny and that defendants took no action concerning any of this prior to Young’s termination, despite Young’s complaint, raises questions. Finally, Conenna’s other questionable comments about “Italian printers,” and Young’s termination in February 2020, strengthen these questions about defendants’ treatment of Young that preclude summary judgment on Young’s claim of national original discrimination.
In addressing a claim for hostile work environment based upon national origin and race, the Court must take into account all circumstances to determine whether plaintiff subjectively could have perceived the workplace to be permeated with racial animus. Although Young does not in his complaint expressly allege this claim as a hostile work environment claim, he does allege these facts as violations of both the NYSHRL and NYCHRL. As a matter of law, a single act may create such a hostile work environment where that alleged conduct is “sufficiently severe” to transform the plaintiff’s workplace (see Bilitch, 194 AD3d at 1003).
The Court finds ample support for this finding here. Based upon information released to the public concerning the global pandemic and Chinese nationals, and the consequential hostility toward Asian Americans at that time, as documented by the EEOC, the Court finds that the sign “Wuhan Restricted Area” qualifies as a single incident that may have subjectively transformed Young’s work environment. Defendants argue that it was not Conenna, but another temporary consultant in defendants’ offices who created the sign and perched it on Conenna’s desk as a joke. Yet, Conenna, according to plaintiff, smiled and laughed at the sign before throwing it away. These incidents, and Bessemer’s failure to take action during Young’s employment, are enough to reflect a workplace that is allegedly tolerant of humor that, in that atmosphere, could fairly be perceived as mocking, harassing, and offensive to Young, and certainly could have raised questions about Young’s treatment at defendants’ place of business.
Based on this, the court denied defendants’ motion.