In Malkoukian v. Nest Seekers Intern., No. 152981/2023, 2025 WL 3080065 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 31, 2025), the court, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s retaliation claims under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.
From the decision:
Retaliation claims under the City and State Human Rights Laws2 are reviewed under a notice pleading standard, in which a plaintiff “need not plead specific facts establishing a prima facie case … but need only give fair notice of the nature of the claim and its grounds” (Eustache v Bd. of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of New York, 228 AD3d 482, 483 [1st Dept 2024]; see also Herskowitz v State, 222 AD3d 587, 588 [1st Dept 2023] [“Plaintiffs in retaliation cases are held to a lenient notice pleading standard and are generally afforded deference at the pleading stage”]).
Applying this lenient standard, defendants’ motion to dismiss the NYSHRL and NYHCRL retaliation claims is denied. To state a claim for retaliation, plaintiff must allege that: (1) he engaged in a protected activity; (2) the employer was aware of the activity; (3) the employer acted in a manner reasonably likely to deter plaintiff from engaging in protected activity; and (4) a causal connection existed between the protected activity and the alleged retaliatory action (see Fletcher v Dakota, Inc., 99 AD3d 43, 51 [1st Dept 2012]). “In this context, protected activity refers to actions taken to protest or oppose statutorily prohibited discrimination” (Thomas v Mintz, 60 Misc 3d 1218(A) [Sup Ct, NY County 2018] [internal citations omitted], affd as mod, 182 AD3d 490 [1st Dept 2020]).
Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that he engaged in a protected activity. According the plaintiff the benefit of every reasonable inference, he has sufficiently alleged that he informed Shapiro, the CEO of Nest Seekers, that Bethoney was creating a hostile work environment or otherwise discriminating on the basis of sex and religion in violation of the New York City and State Human Rights Laws (see Madrigal v Montefiore Med. Ctr., 191 AD3d 407 [1st Dept 2021] [“Plaintiff engaged in protected activity by repeatedly complaining to her employer that supervisors were discriminating against her”]; see also Krebaum v Capital One, N.A., 138 AD3d 528, 528 [1st Dept 2016] [motion court erred in dismissing retaliation claim where evidence showed that plaintiff complained of age discrimination to human resources]). That plaintiff was then allegedly deprived of commissions he had earned is a materially adverse act under the Human Rights Laws (see Messinger v Girl Scouts of the U.S.A., 16 AD3d 314, 315 [1st Dept 2005] [“To be ‘materially adverse’ a change in working conditions must be ‘more disruptive than a mere inconvenience or an alteration of job responsibilities” such as “a termination of employment, a demotion evidenced by a decrease in wage or salary, a less distinguished title, a material loss of benefits, significantly diminished material responsibilities…”]) and is sufficiently close in time to his protected activity to establish, in and of itself, a causal connection between his protected activity and adverse act for pleading purposes.
The court also denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims of breach of contract, quantum meruit, and unjust enrichment.