In Rojo v. Lakeview Sec. & Investigations, Inc., No. 24-CV-5729 (JPO), 2026 WL 83909 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2026), the court granted plaintiff’s motion for default judgment on her sex discrimination claims under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.
From the decision:
A party’s default is deemed to constitute a concession of all well-pleaded allegations of liability. However, the Court must still consider whether the unchallenged facts “meet the elements of the relevant cause of action.”
As an initial matter, the Court concludes that it has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 based on the assertion of claims under the FLSA. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the State- and City-law claims because those claims are sufficiently related to the FLSA claims that they form part of the same case or controversy. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
Plaintiff’s allegations—now assumed true—that she (1) failed to receive overtime pay despite routinely working overtime, and (2) failed to receive wage notices, clearly establish Defendants’ liability under the FLSA and NYLL.
Plaintiff also asserts sex and weight discrimination and hostile work environment claims against Defendants under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL. Because the factual allegations supporting these claims are limited in detail, they are more difficult to assess and even more difficult to quantify.
With respect to weight discrimination, the NYCHRL was amended only in 2023 to prohibit discrimination on the basis of weight, and the amendment was not made retroactive. Because that amendment was effective November 26, 2023, id., it covers only the final months of Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants, which ended on May 2, 2024.
With respect to sex discrimination and hostile environment, Plaintiff alleges that she was routinely given lower-paying security jobs than her male colleagues, that Defendants fostered a hostile work environment, and that on one occasion after she complained, Defendant D’Garcia stated, “they don’t want fat, short females.
The court concluded that these allegations were sufficiently to support plaintiff’s claims that defendants discriminated against her on the basis of sex in violation of the NYSHRL and NYCHRL. (Cleaned up.)