In Sean C.I.R. v. Nexstar Media Group Inc., No. 150543/2024, 2025 WL 944582, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 30975(U), 7–8 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Mar. 28, 2025), the court, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims of a race-based hostile work environment under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.
The court summarized the facts as follows:
Plaintiff, an African American male, began working at WPIX in 1999. Plaintiff alleges that throughout his employment at WPIX he witnessed incidents of racism and discrimination which were aided and condoned by WPIX. Plaintiff alleges, among other incidents, that a noose was openly hung in the office, that fellow employees used racial epithets, and made otherwise racist comments, and when plaintiff made his concerns known to Human Resources, the actions went unremedied and continued. Plaintiff also alleges that African-American employees were regularly treated worse than Caucasian employees, by being assigned less desirable shifts, and being passed over for promotions. Plaintiff alleges that when he inquired about applying for a promotion, he was instantly turned down, and was later told that his supervisor stated “they didn’t need an angry Black guy in that position,” referring to plaintiff. Plaintiff claims that in January of 2021, feeling that he could no longer tolerate the work environment at WPIX, he resigned, stating in his resignation e-mail that the reason for his resignation was the discriminatory conduct towards, plaintiff and other African-Americans he experienced while working at WPIX.
[Citations omitted.]
The court applied the law as follows:
A racially hostile work environment exists when the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment. Whether an environment is hostile or abusive can be determined only by looking at all the circumstances, including the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance. Further, an employer cannot be held liable for employees’ discriminatory acts or statements unless the employer became a party to it by encouraging, condoning, or approving it.
Here, again first examining the alleged incidents that occurred during the statutory period the allegations cannot support a claim for a hostile work environment. While, as the Court of Appeals noted in Forrest, any use of a racial slur is reprehensible but it is not actionable. Here, the incidents complained of did not pervade plaintiff’s work environment, having allegedly occurred on six occasions over 24 years. Since, a hostile work environment requires more than a few isolated incidents of racial enmity and instead of sporadic racial slurs, there must be a steady barrage of opprobrious racial comments the allegations here are insufficient to maintain a cause of action for a hostile work environment.
[Internal citations, bracketing, and quotation marks omitted.]
Based on this, the court held that dismissal was warranted.