In Wheat v. Vichie, No. 158627/2024, 2025 WL 3089438 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nov. 03, 2025), the court, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims of discrimination asserted under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.
From the decision:
The only allegations Plaintiff makes that would go towards a discrimination claim based on orientation are that Defendant 1) once commented that he did not “agree with the gay lifestyle”; and 2) displayed Nazi-related books and objects that made Plaintiff uncomfortable, given the treatment of LGBTQ+ individuals in the Nazi regime. There are factual disputes here, as Defendant argues that the hat Plaintiff viewed as a Nazi hat is simply a German hat from the 1970s, and that the books Plaintiff refer to are academic in nature. On a motion to dismiss, the facts pled by Plaintiff are taken to be true and factual disputes typically requires that the motion be denied.
But a claim for discrimination under the Human Rights Laws cannot succeed if “the offending actions are no more than petty slights or trivial inconveniences.” Franco v. Hyatt Corp., 189 A.D.3d 569, 570 [1st Dept. 2020]. The first allegation is no more than a petty slight, and Plaintiff himself characterizes the single comment as “casual.” The present case is distinguishable from other validly pled discrimination claims, such as Doe. There, the plaintiff endured years of “constant homophobic slurs” among other discriminatory actions. Doe v. New York City Police Dept., 190 A.D.3d 411, 412 [1st Dept. 2021]. Here, there was a single “casual” comment made that Defendant did not “agree with the gay lifestyle.” This is not sufficient to sustain a discrimination claim under even the broad NYCHRL. See also Sandiford v. City of New York Dept. of Educ., 94 A.D.3d 593, 595 [1st Dept. 2012] (holding that “repeated derogatory remarks regarding gays and lesbians” was sufficient to raise a question of fact for a discrimination claim).
The question is then whether the alleged open display of Nazi memorabilia constitutes discrimination under either the City or the State Human Rights Law. While there are clear questions of fact and credibility in this matter, taking the Plaintiff’s allegations as true Defendant displayed material that was sympathetic to the Nazis. Under the uniquely broad interpretation required by NYCHRL, the display of pro-Nazi material in the workplace could be considered to be more than a trivial inconvenience. But fundamental to a claim for discrimination under either statute is the allegation of unequal treatment. A plaintiff must allege to have been “treated differently or worse than other employees.” Harrington v. City of New York, 157 A.D.3d 582, 584 [1st Dept. 2018]. Here, Plaintiff does not allege that he treated differently from any other employees, nor does the display of memorabilia in the workplace, open to any and all employees, lend itself to such an inference.
Based on this, the court held that dismissal was warranted.