In Beaute Aesthetics NYC LLC v. Jacobs, No. 650898/2024, 2026 WL 938398 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 02, 2026), the court, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendant’s counterclaim asserting a hostile work environment:
To establish a hostile work environment claim under the New York City Human Rights Law, “the primary issue for a trier of fact in harassment cases, as in other terms and conditions cases, is whether the plaintiff has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that she has been treated less well than other employees because of her [protected status].” Williams v New York City Hous. Auth., 61 AD3d 62, 78 [1st Dept 2009]. Despite the broader application of the NYCHRL, conduct that consists of “petty slights or trivial inconveniences . . . do[es] not suffice to support a hostile work environment claim.” Buchwald v Silverman Shin & Byrne PLLC, 149 AD3d 560, 560 [1st Dept 2017] (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Defendant alleges that she was subject to repeated inappropriate advances by plaintiff’s principal. The counterclaim alleges that she was subjected to unwanted phone calls and texts but does not allege how she was treated differently than any other employee. The Court finds that the complaint is insufficient to state a claim for hostile work environment.
This decision, accordingly, highlights the need to ensure that a complaint contains allegations that are sufficiently specific in order to survive a motion to dismiss.