In Jane v. Seema Bhansali et al, No. 24-CV-08853 (OEM) (PK), 2026 WL 636672 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2026), the court, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s retaliation claim asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
From the decision:
Title VII provides that “[i]t shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees … because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter, or because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–3(a). “Title VII is violated when ‘a retaliatory motive plays a part in adverse employment actions toward an employee, whether or not it was the sole cause.’ ” “[F]or a retaliation claim to survive … a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must plausibly allege that: (1) defendants discriminated—or took an adverse employment action—against him, (2) ‘because’ he has opposed any unlawful employment practice.” More specifically, “a plaintiff must present evidence that shows ‘(1) participation in a protected activity; (2) that the defendant knew of the protected activity; (3) an adverse employment action; and (4) a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.’ ” Again, the allegations “need only give plausible support” to the foregoing requirements.
Defendants do not dispute that there was an adverse employment action. Defendants argue that Plaintiff shared her experience at NSM in the context of her one-on-one meeting as the Diversity and Inclusion Manager, so she was not engaging in a protected activity and there “was no basis for Bhansali or others to receive Plaintiff’s comments as a protected discrimination complaint” and, consequently, no possibility that the Defendants knew of the protected activity.
Plaintiff plausibly asserts that she engaged in a protected activity and Defendants knew of the protected activity. A plaintiff’s complaint to an employer “constitutes a protected activity so long as she articulated the substance of her complaint in such a way that her employer would ‘reasonably underst[and]’ that it was about unlawful discrimination against her.” “[I]mplicit in the requirement that the employer have been aware of the protected activity is the requirement that it understood, or could reasonably have understood, that the plaintiff’s opposition was directed at conduct prohibited by Title VII.” Conversely, “[t]o the extent an employee is required as part of her job duties to report or investigate other employees’ complaints of discrimination, such reporting or investigating by itself is not a protected activity … because merely to convey others’ complaints of discrimination is not to oppose practices made unlawful by Title VII” unless that employee is “ ‘critical’ about the ‘discriminatory employment practices’ of her employer, [then] that employee has engaged in a protected activity[.]”
Here, Plaintiff alleges that she shared her experience with Bhansali and was critical of the opening video with the potential anti-transgender comment and the “yummy enough to eat” comment made by the unidentified white male made at the NSM. She expressed how “she never imagined herself being the victim of such an incident [and] her embarrassment [at] the awkwardness that [ensued.]” In turn, Bhansali said “she would look into the video and the comment and find a resolution to the issues.” Based on these allegations, Bhansali could have reasonably understood that Plaintiff was complaining about discrimination. To the extent that Plaintiff alleges that Bhansali claimed she would look further into the issues raised, such action indicates Bhansali treated Plaintiff’s concerns as a complaint to be addressed further.
(Cleaned up.)
The court concluded that “[t]he above facts clearly allege that Plaintiff was more than a passive participant in expressing her concern and that Bhansali could have reasonably understood that Plaintiff was referencing being discriminated against.”
Furthermore, since plaintiff’s Title VII retaliation claim survived, her claims under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws (which employ are more lenient standard) likewise survive.