In Dorzilor v. MSH 1538, LLC, No. 159191/2025, 2026 WL 967771 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 08, 2026), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s employment discrimination and retaliation claims asserted under the New York City Human Rights Law.
From the decision:
To allege employment discrimination, a plaintiff must show (a) she is a member of a protected class; (b) she was qualified for the position; (c) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (d) that the adverse action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination (Hribovsek v United Cerebral Palsy of New York City, 223 AD3d 618 [1st Dept 2024]). A plaintiff alleging employment discrimination does not need to plead a prima facie case of discrimination but must only give fair notice of the nature of the claim and its grounds (Vig v New York Hairspray Co., L.P., 67 AD3d 140 [1st Dept 2009]). The standard for determining liability for discrimination-based claims under the NYCHRL is to ensure that discrimination plays no role in the disparate treatment of similarly situated individuals in the workplace (Williams v New York City Housing Authority, 61 AD3d 62, 76 [1st Dept 2009]). The NYSHRL, which was amended in 2019, mirrors the “play no-role” standard under the NYCHRL (Hosking v Mem’l Sloan-Kettering Cancer Ctr., 186 AD3d 58, 64 n.1 [1st Dept 2020]).
Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion on the basis that the Complaint was not annexed to the motion papers is without merit, as this is a NYSCEF case and the Complaint is readily available electronically (see Reyes v Sanchez-Pena, 117 AD3d 621 [1st Dept 2014] [failure to annex pleadings was not fatal procedural defect]).1 However, for purposes of a pre-answer motion to dismiss, where the Court must accept as true the factual allegations and give Plaintiff the benefit of all favorable inferences, Plaintiff has adequately alleged discrimination and wrongful termination under the NYCHRL. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges she was a member of a protected class who was qualified for the position and that she suffered an adverse employment action (namely termination). Moreover, Plaintiff has alleged her termination took place under an inference of discrimination since she was terminated following medical leave while other similarly situated non-African American employees who had been employed for a shorter period than Plaintiff and who also took medical leave were not terminated. While Defendant disputes the veracity of these allegations, those arguments are more appropriately made on a motion for summary judgment as opposed to a pre-answer motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff likewise adequately alleged retaliation as she claims she was terminated immediately upon returning from medical leave, which, accepting the facts alleged as true, gives the inference that she was terminated at least partially in retaliation for using sick leave (see Kim v Goldberg, Weprin, Finkel, Goldstein, LLP, 120 AD3d 18 [1st Dept 2014]). The affirmations from Defendant’s employees that dispute the accuracy of Plaintiff’s allegations do not constitute documentary evidence.
The court did, however, grant the motion to dismiss as to plaintiff’s negligent infliction of emotional distress claim, noting that there were no allegations involving threats of violence, but rather an allegedly discriminatory and improper termination.