In Hinds v. PSEG Long Island LLC, Long Island Elec. Util. Servco LLC, Nat’l Grid Elec. Servs., LLC, Michael Abrams, & Michael Star, No. 23-CV-08701 (RER) (LGD), 2026 WL 266010 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2026), the court, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s discrimination claims under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.
From the decision:
Plaintiff alleges several incidents that do meet his City and State burden at the pleading stage. His claim about extra training and truck restrictions after his minor collision survives for the same reasons it does under federal law. Plaintiff sufficiently alleges that he was treated less well than at least three white colleagues who did not face similar consequences, though they were involved in more serious collisions. Even absent more details about who specifically made this decision and why, this is enough to allege unfavorable treatment with a discriminatory motive under the State and City laws. See Deveaux, 2020 WL 1812741, at *5 (holding a pregnant plaintiff’s allegations that supervisors did not a afford her the same flexibility as non-pregnant colleagues met NYCHRL’s “liberal differential treatment standard”).
Similarly, both being assigned to work outside in the heat and the first noose incident, having met the higher federal standard, are “sufficient to support a corresponding claim under the NYSHRL, as well as under the NYCHRL” Styka v. My Merchants Servs. LLC, No. 14-CV-6198 (ENV) (VMS), 2016 WL 3866550, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. July 13, 2016); see also Williams v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth., 154 F. Supp. 2d 820, 824 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (discussing the historical context, psychological significance, and violent racist symbolism of a noose). Plaintiff plausibly demonstrates that Abrams treated him “less well” than two similarly situated white coworkers when assigning him to work outside and denying him the same bathroom and food provisions on the “sweltering day” in June 2021. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 126–27). It does not matter whether the event was an adverse employment action, because such a showing is not required by the state and city laws. That the other colleagues were not in Plaintiff’s protected class is enough to infer discriminatory intent. The same is true for the noose.
(Cleaned up.)
The court did, however, hold that these three race-based incident do not revive other allegations outside of the period of limitations, noting that some of the untimely allegations related to disability-based discrimination, which is not connected to race, supporting the conclusion that the continuing violations doctrine did not apply.