In Burgess v. MTA Const. and Development Co., No. 160414/2024, 2026 WL 195519 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jan. 21, 2026), the court, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims asserted under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.
From the decision:
To plead a hostile work environment marred with discrimination under the NYSHRL, plaintiff must allege that that the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment. In contrast, under the NYCHRL, a plaintiff claiming a hostile work environment need only demonstrate that he or she was treated less well than other employees because of the relevant characteristic.
Smith repeatedly questioned plaintiff about his sexual orientation, race, and medical condition between May and August 2023. (NYSCEF No. 16 at ΒΆΒΆ 19-26; see Black v ESPN, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 50118[U], *5 [Sup Ct, NY County 2021] [holding that plaintiff’s allegations that his supervisor asked him questions about his skin condition in front of other employees and treated plaintiff worse after telling finding out about plaintiff’s condition pleaded a hostile work environment].) Plaintiff alleges that he was humiliated by Smith’s questions.
(Cleaned up.)
The court concluded “that the alleged persistent personal inquiries go beyond typical workplace interactions and support the existence of a hostile work environment,” warranting denial of defendants’ motion.