In Anderson v. The City of New York, No. 155791/2023, 2025 WL 1756499 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County June 25, 2025), the court, inter alia, plaintiff did not state a cause of action for retaliation under the New York City Human Rights Law.
From the decision:
In his second cause of action, plaintiff brings a claim for retaliation under the NYCHRL, and alleges that he “was engaged in a protected activity – namely complying with drug screening by fulfilling Defendant’s request to acquire alternative medication,” but that, “[i]nstead of taking corrective action the Defendants retaliated against the Plaintiff and terminated his position”.
Under the NYCHRL, it is unlawful to retaliate against an employee for opposing discriminatory practices. To establish a claim for retaliation under the NYCHRL, a complainant must show that (1) she or he engaged in a protected activity, as that term is defined under the NYCHRL, (2) the employer was aware that she or he participated in such activity, (3) the employer engaged in conduct which was reasonably likely to deter a person from engaging in that protected activity, and (4) there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the alleged retaliatory conduct.
The anti-retaliation provision of the NYCHRL provides that:
“It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person engaged in any activity to which this chapter applies to retaliate or discriminate in any manner against any person because such person has (i) opposed any practice forbidden under this chapter, (ii) filed a complaint, testified or assisted in any proceeding under this chapter, (iii) commenced a civil action alleging the commission of an act which would be an unlawful discriminatory practice under this chapter, (iv) assisted the commission or the corporation counsel in an investigation commenced pursuant to this title, (v) requested a reasonable accommodation under this chapter, or (vi) provided any information to the commission pursuant to the terms of a conciliation agreement made pursuant to section 8-115 of this chapter” (NYC Administrative Code § 8-107 [7]).
Complying with a drug screening is not “protected activity” under the NYCHRL as defined above. Moreover, plaintiff has not pleaded any causal connection, except in the most conclusory fashion, between his putative “protected activity” and the decision to discontinue his probationary employment (see Brown v City of New York, 185 AD3d 410, 410-411 [1st Dept 2020] [dismissing plaintiff’s retaliation claim for failure to allege a causal connection between her complaints and any adverse employment actions based on temporal proximity, and for plaintiff’s failure to allege any other facts supporting causation]).
Moreover, the court rejects plaintiff’s arguments in opposition that he has established retaliation because he “revealed his medical condition to the Defendant and, upon learning of Plaintiff’s medical condition, the Defendant suspended the Plaintiff”. However, as noted above, plaintiff concedes that he disclosed his medical condition to DSNY during the training that he received shortly after his appointment. Moreover, plaintiff does not allege that he ever complained about discrimination, only that he notified DSNY about his medical condition.
(Citations omitted.)
Accordingly, dismissal of plaintiff’s retaliation cause of action was warranted.