In Zimpfer v. Hilbert College, Case No. 1:21-cv-231, 2025 WL 1758266 (W.D.N.Y. June 25, 2025), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim asserted under the (amended) New York State Human Rights Law.
From the decision:
As to the NYSHRL hostile-work-environment claim, Defendants cite authority indicating that the elements of such a claim are the same as the elements under Title VII. See Black v. Buffalo Meat Serv., Inc., No. 15-CV-49, 2021 WL 2043006, at *11 (W.D.N.Y. May 21, 2021). But the complaint in Black was filed in 2015—before the 2019 amendment to the NYSHRL that added § 296(1)(h). See Reed v. Fortive Corp., No. 21-CV-6312, 2023 WL 4457908, at *11 n.19 (W.D.N.Y. July 11, 2023) (noting that amendments to the NYSHRL adding § 296(1)(h), effective October 11, 2019, changed the standard “to eliminate the requirement that harassing or discriminatory conduct be ‘severe or pervasive’ for it to be actionable” (quoting Maiurano v. Cantor Fitzgerald Sec., No. 19-cv-10042, 2021 WL 76410, at *3 & n.2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 2021))); see also, e.g., Elco v. Aguiar, 208 N.Y.S.3d 696, 650 (App. Div. 2024) (“Where a plaintiff files a claim under section 296(1)(h) on or after October 11, 2019, the plaintiff need not establish that the alleged harassment would be considered severe or pervasive under precedent applied to harassment claims.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Ms. Zimpfer filed her complaint in this case on February 9, 2021—after § 296(1)(h) took effect. Therefore, the more protective standard currently in effect under the NYSHRL applies in this case. The applicable NYSHRL standard “prohibits conduct that results in ‘inferior terms, conditions or privileges of employment.” Reed, 2023 WL 4457908, at *11 n.19 (quoting Maiurano, 2021 WL 76410, at *3 n.2). The sole argument for dismissal of Count 10 as against Hilbert is the College’s assertion that the work environment was not “objectively hostile.” Because the College has not addressed Plaintiff’s observation that the NYSHRL standard is different, and has not articulated how the analysis of the objective prong should proceed under that more protective standard, the court concludes that the College is not entitled to summary judgment on Count 10.
Accordingly, this decision illustrates how courts will interpret the newly-amended NYSHRL, particularly in light of its more lenient standard for establishing a hostile work environment claim.