In Noh v. Admarketplace, Inc., 24 Civ. 2107 (ER), 2025 WL 965882 (S.D.N.Y. March 28, 2025), the court, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s sex- and race-based hostile work environment claims asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.
As to plaintiff’s federal (Title VII and § 1981) claims, the court explained:
Here, Noh’s hostile work environment claim is predicated on allegations that Kilberg: positioned himself very closely to her and put his hand over hers to move her computer mouse on ten separate occasions; made gender based and sexually harassing comments, such as “Lexy, your figure is so different from the Asian girls I’ve dated,” “Lexy, you’re such a good girl;” asked Noh if it was “her time of the month” when she disagreed with him; and said “That’s biology” when Noh complained about feeling hot or cold in the office. Kilberg also told Noh that “[she] shouldn’t eat too much, or [she’ll] get too big,” ate Noh’s snacks and told her that by doing so he was doing her “a favor … to help [her] maintain her weight and figure.” He also referred to Noh as “darling” on multiple occasions.
In late 2021, when she jokingly told Kilberg “[w]e should trade [hotel] rooms,” he cornered her and responded “[y]ou shouldn’t joke around about sharing rooms with me.” Noh told him that her intent was not to suggest the two of them share a room, to which Kilberg smirked while stating he must have misheard. Noh also notes during a video conference at the beginning of 2022 where she and her teammates had their cameras off, Kilberg only targeted her by saying “Lexy, why are you hiding? Come out, come out, wherever you are,” which made Noh feel “belittled and targeted.” During this same time period, Kilberg had a one-on-one call with Noh, where he pointed to a photo of a naked woman on the wall behind him and forced Noh to look at it and told her that it was his ex-girlfriend.
Noh alleges that there were multiple other occasions where Kilberg berated her in front of other colleagues, such as an occasion that took place March 22 or March 23 of 2022, wherein Kilberg became irate when Noh told him they would talk about a specific topic in a few minutes and screamed “Lexy, it’s a simple yes or no question — when I ask you a question — you answer it!” She claims she was “incredibly shaken and disturbed by this treatment … especially since it threatened her job security.” Moreover, Noh alleges that she reported this sexual harassment, and gender and race discrimination to three different individuals in managerial positions to no avail.
Noh’s hostile work environment claim plausibly describes an objectively severe or pervasive hostile work environment that could have reasonably interfered with her ability to work—especially in light of the number of alleged derogatory statements. See, e.g., Schiano v. Quality Payroll Systems, Inc., 445 F.3d 597, 606–07 (2d Cir. 2006) (citing Harris, 510 U.S. at 25 (Scalia, J., concurring)) (clarifying that whether harassment interferes with an employee’s ability to work is only one factor to be considered when looking at the totality of circumstances to determine whether a hostile work environment has been created. “[T]he test is not whether work has been impaired, but whether working conditions have been discriminatorily altered.”). She thus satisfies the first element of a hostile work environment claim.
Regarding the second element, Noh has sufficiently pled she subjectively perceived her work environment as hostile or abusive. Torres v. Pisano, 116 F.3d 625, 631 (2d Cir. 1997) (concluding that “general allegations of constant abuse” create a jury question as to severity and pervasiveness “even in the absence of specific details about each incident”). The Court concludes that Noh has alleged sufficient facts to be “entitled to offer evidence to support her claim.” See Patane, 508 F.3d at 115 (vacating district court’s dismissal of hostile work environment claim because plaintiff pled facts sufficient to satisfy all three prongs of the test for a hostile work environment pursuant to Title VII).
As to the third element, Noh alleges that “but for the fact that [she] is a female and of Asian descent, Defendants would not have treated her differently.” In this regard, and as discussed above, Noh refers to numerous instances when Kilberg referred to her Asian descent and gender when making the purportedly discriminatory statements. Thus, Noh sufficiently shows that Kilberg created an intolerable environment because of her protected characteristics as an Asian woman.
[Citations omitted.]
Accordingly, the court held that the denial of defendants’ motions (as to the federal claims) was warranted.
And, since plaintiff’s claims survived dismissal under federal law, they survived under the New York State Human Rights Law (for the same reasons stated with respect to federal law), as well as under the New York City Human Rights Law (which imposes a more liberal standard).