In Neel v. New York University, No. 655743/2023, 2026 WL 623701 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 26, 2026), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims of discrimination under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.
From the decision:
To state a claim for discrimination under NYSRHL and NYCHRL a plaintiff must allege (1) that he/she is a member of a protected class, (2) that he/she was qualified for the position, (3) that he/she was subjected to an adverse employment action (under State HRL) or he/she was treated differently or worse than other employees (under City HRL), and (4) that the adverse or different treatment occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination or a discriminatory motive (Santiago-Mendez v City of New York, 136 AD3d 428 [1st Dept. 2016]; Rollins v Fencers Club, Inc., 128 AD3d 401 [1st Dept. 2015]; Executive Law § 296; Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § 8-107). Both the NYSHRL and NYCHRL are to be construed liberally to accomplish their purpose in barring discrimination. (See Executive Law § 300 [“The provisions of this article shall be construed liberally for the accomplishment of the remedial purposes thereof”]; Administrative Code of the City of NY § 8-130 [a] [same]; Bennett v Health Mgt. Sys., Inc., 92 AD3d 29, 34 [1st Dept. 2011].)
The parties dispute whether the amended complaint adequately pleads the fourth element. Defendants argue that under CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the amended complaint asserts speculative and conclusory allegations and that the claims fail to give rise to an inference of discrimination or a discriminatory animus. The Court disagrees. The amended complaint alleges, at a minimum, that plaintiff’s leadership position was terminated due to his public support of his religion and further alleges that defendants’ executive vice president made comments that indicate both his termination and subsequent treatment were motivated by a discriminatory animus.
The court thus concluded that “[t]o the extent the complaint contains these allegations–and given that (1) the Court’s role is to assess whether the facts fit within a cognizable legal theory regardless of whether plaintiff will ultimately be able to prove such allegations, and (2) the liberal construction afforded to NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims in the pleading state–this branch of the motion to dismiss is denied.”