In Naulla v. WrkArt Studios, LLC, No. 518241/2024, 2025 WL 1884194 (N.Y. Sup Ct, Kings County July 03, 2025), the court, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims of retaliation under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.
From the decision:
For his first and fourth causes of action, Plaintiff pleads that Defendant discriminated against him in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law, respectively. A plaintiff alleging discrimination in violation of the NYSHRL must establish that (1) he or she is a member of a protected class; (2) he or she was qualified to hold the position; (3) he or she suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) the adverse action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. Alternatively, a plaintiff alleging discrimination in violation of the NYCHRL must allege that they were “treated less well” than their colleagues.
From the four corners of the pleadings, Plaintiff sufficiently alleges that he has protected caregiver/gender status, had satisfactory job performance, was terminated five weeks after announcing paid-family leave plans, and that he was required to work during his leave.
These facts give reasonable support to an inference of discrimination as required for a cause of action for discrimination under the NYSHRL at the pleading stage. Similarly, Plaintiff’s cause of action for discrimination under the NYCHRL also survives a CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion as Plaintiff sufficiently pleaded that he was treated less well than other employees. Namely, that he was forced to work during his paternity leave as a male as opposed to female employees who would not have been treated the same. Importantly, Plaintiff alleges Defendant told him directly that he would have to work remotely during paternity leave because he was male.Defendants argue that Plaintiff failed to sufficiently establish a causal connection between his alleged protected activity and the alleged retaliatory conduct. However, Plaintiff sufficiently alleges that he was engaged in a protected activity as a caregiver who requested paternity leave, that Defendants were aware of this conduct, and that he was subsequently terminated as a result. These allegations adequately establish a causal nexus between the protected activity and the adverse action.
(Cleaned up.)
Based on this, the court found that plaintiff stated a cause of action for retaliation under both the NYSHRL and NYCHRL.