In Dorio v. Cmty. Hous. Mgmt. Corp. et al, No. 62784/2025, 2026 WL 90179 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jan. 8, 2026), the court, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim asserted under the New York State Human Rights Law.
Among other things, plaintiff alleged that she was forced to endure a hostile work environment in the form of employees “wearing fragrance at maximum levels to punish” her.
From the decision:
To plead an actionable hostile work environment under the NYSHRL, plaintiff must allege that she was subjected “to inferior terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of because of the individual’s membership in one or more protected categories. Executive Law 296 ยง (h)(1). Courts have held that the NYSHRL’s new standard for establishing a hostile work environment claim is similar to the standard for stating a hostile work environment claim under the New York City Human Rights Law. Nonetheless, courts must be mindful that the NYCHRL is not a general civility code. The plaintiff still bears the burden of showing that the conduct is caused by a discriminatory motive. It is not enough that a plaintiff has an overbearing or obnoxious boss. She must show that she has been treated less well at least in part because of her protected characteristic.
The amended complaint alleges that defendants subjected plaintiff to a hostile work environment by wearing fragrance at the maximum levels, to ensure that plaintiff would have an emergency asthma attack. Despite the scent-free policy, plaintiff still wears a mask in the office. Plaintiff proffers the same allegations in support of her discrimination and retaliation claims. For example, she claims that Francis continued to plug in her electric fragrance, and then when plaintiff complained about it, she was subjected to more unnecessary hostility.
In opposition to defendants’ motion, plaintiff does not oppose the dismissal of the hostile work environment claim. Regardless, as plaintiff is not entitled to a scent free workplace, the claim that plaintiff was subject to a hostile work environment due to scents in the workplace, is not viable. In addition, these, as well as the other allegations, fail to plead that defendants’ actions were predicated on any discriminatory animus or that she was subjected to inferior terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of her protected characteristics.
(Cleaned up, emphasis added.)
Based on this, the court concluded that dismissal of plaintiff’s hostile work environment cause of action was warranted.