In Huaman v. United Airlines, Inc., No. 160784/2023, 2025 WL 1158984 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Apr. 21, 2025), the court, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint asserting employment discrimination under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.
From the decision:
Defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) is denied. When reviewing a pre-answer motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the Court must give the Plaintiff the benefit of all favorable inferences which may be drawn from the pleadings and determines only whether the alleged facts fit within any cognizable legal theory (Sassi v Mobile Life Support Services, Inc., 37 NY3d 236, 239 [2021]). All factual allegations must be accepted as true (Allianz Underwriters Ins. Co. v Landmark Ins. Co., 13 AD3d 172, 174 [1st Dept 2004]). Conclusory allegations or claims consisting of bare legal conclusions with no factual specificity are insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss (Godfrey v Spano, 13 NY3d 358, 373 [2009] Barnes v Hodge, 118 AD3d 633, 633-634 [1st Dept 2014]). A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim will be granted if the factual allegations do not allow for an enforceable right of recovery (Connaughton v Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 29 NY3d 137, 142 [2017]).
As held by the Court of Appeals, the purpose of the New York State and City Human Rights laws is to “protect ‘inhabitants’ and persons ‘within’ the state” (Hoffman v Parade Publications, 15 NY3d 285, 291 [2010]). Further, Courts must construe the New York State and City Human Rights laws broadly in favor of discrimination plaintiffs (Syeed v Bloomberg L.P., 41 NY3d 446, 450 [2024]). As it is undisputed that Plaintiff continued working at both LaGuardia and JFK until August 12, 2021, the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law applies to Plaintiff’s allegations of discrimination from July 2020 through August 12, 2021.
Further, as clarified at oral argument, Plaintiff was always a resident of the City and State of New York. The Court of Appeals has held that the impact requirement is satisfied by “establishing that the challenged conduct had some impact on the plaintiff within the respective New York geographic boundaries.” (Syeed, supra at 452).
The impact of the alleged discrimination against Plaintiff was felt, at least partially, within the boundaries of New York City. Plaintiff alleges the impact of the discrimination was felt by adding to his commuting burden and requiring him to commute from New York City to another state when he had previously been able to work at LaGuardia solely, and alleges this increased commuting burden was part of a scheme to force him out of United. Moreover, the impact requirement is satisfied because Plaintiff was terminated from employment while residing in New York City.
Based on this, the court concluded that “the argument that the New York State and City Human Rights laws don’t apply simply because Plaintiff was working solely at Newark International Airport after August 12, 2021, is without merit and a misreading of Plaintiff’s Complaint,” warranting denial of defendants’ motion.