In Sacchi v. The Ribbon Worldwide LLC, No. 154663/2024, 2026 WL 676206 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 25, 2026), the court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim of weight discrimination asserted under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.
From the decision:
Here, as an initial matter, this court finds that the NYSHRL is not triggered by the facts alleged here. As held by the Court of Appeals, “weight, in and of itself, does not constitute a disability for discrimination qualification purposes and . . . discrimination claims in that respect are . . . unsustainable.” (Delta Air Lines v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 91 NY2d 65, 73 [1997]). Although weight may be linked to a “disability” within the meaning of the statute, which the Executive Law § 292 (21) defines as “a physical, mental or medical impairment resulting from anatomical, physiological or neurological conditions which prevents the exercise of a normal bodily function or is demonstrable by medically accepted clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques”, plaintiff has failed to allege that his weight is connected to a “medical impairment” or restricts his “normal bodily function.” Quite the contrary as plaintiff alleges that he worked at similar events where restaurants were full of customers and “had no problems moving around”. Therefore, inasmuch as plaintiff has failed to allege that his weight was as a result of a medical condition such that he would be “disabled” within the meaning of the NYSHRL (see Spiegel v Schulmann, 604 F3d 72, 80-81 [2d Cir. 2010]), the complaint fails to establish that plaintiff is a member of a protected class under the NYSHRL. Therefore, the cause of action based on discrimination under the NYSHRL is dismissed.
Although the NYCHRL expressly includes “weight” as a basis for protection under its statute, this court finds that the pleadings here fail to allege sufficient facts to support his discrimination claim. The sole allegation in support of plaintiff’s claim that he was excluded from the subject event is that there is no other reason why he would have been excluded. However, the complaint confirms that Paramount never identified his weight as the reason for his exclusion. Nor does plaintiff allege that he was the only person in the purported protected class to be excluded from the event. Although plaintiff references a comment allegedly made by a Ribbon scheduling manager to confirm that his exclusion was based on his weight, this stray remark makes no reference to the decision to exclude him from the event and is insufficient as a matter of law to give rise to an inference of discrimination against movant (see Godbolt v Verizon N.Y. Inc., 115 AD3d 493, 494 [1st Dept 2014]; Melman v Montefiore Med. Ctr., 98 AD3d 107, 125 [1st Dept 2012]).
The court concluded that “the conclusory assertions in the complaint that Ribbon discriminated against plaintiff based on his weight are insufficient to create an inference of discrimination and amount to no more than speculation.”