In O’Connor v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., No. 158198/2024, 2025 WL 3709253 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Dec. 17, 2025), the court, inter alia, held that plaintiff failed to state a claim of sex discrimination under the New York City Human Rights Law.
After determining that plaintiff not receiving a promotion constituted an “adverse employment action,” it continued;
Even if an adverse employment action against Plaintiff is found, Plaintiff’s NYCHRL claim fails to sufficiently plead that Defendant Lindsey and Defendant Citigroup treated him worse or differently than other employees based on his sex. Plaintiff fails to allege how Defendant Lindsey herself treated him worse or differently than other employees based on his sex because Defendant Singh was the one who determined Plaintiff’s duties and responsibilities as a Citigroup employee. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 29, 35). Plaintiff fails to allege that Defendant Lindsey treated him differently than other employees because of his sex. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 23). For example, in Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendant Lindsey was openly hostile toward him, he states that it was because Defendant Lindsey perceived him as a threat, not because of his sex. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 1, complaint ¶ 20). For these reasons, Plaintiff fails to plead discrimination under the NYCHRL and NYSHRL against Defendant Lindsey. Plaintiff fails to plead that Defendant Citigroup treated Plaintiff worse or differently than other employees based on his sex. Plaintiff alleges during his employment at Citigroup, Defendant Lindsey was given an unjust promotion, was given the best accounts, was allowed unlimited time off the desk, was given time during work to study for a test, and other benefits that were not extended to men like Plaintiff. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 1, complaint ¶ 19). Plaintiff fails to sufficiently allege that these alleged differences in treatment by Defendant Citigroup are disparate and that they were based on Plaintiff’s sex. Therefore, Plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege discrimination under NYCHRL and NYSHRL against Defendant Citigroup.
The court further concluded that plaintiff did not sufficiently allege an aiding an abetting claim, since plaintiff failed “to allege Defendant Citigroup’s knowledge and substantial assistance in the achievement of the primary violation.”