In Nunez-Unda v. Adrien, No. 650971/2022, 2026 WL 1697697, at *9 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 04, 2026), the court, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims of retaliation asserted under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.
From the decision:
The NYSHRL prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee because the employee opposed a discriminatory practice or made a complaint about discrimination (Executive Law § 296(7]). The NYCHRL likewise prohibits retaliation where an employee opposed a discriminatory practice, regardless of whether the complaint was formal or informal (Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-107[7]). To state a retaliation claim, a plaintiff must allege that “(1) [the plaintiff] participated in a protected activity known to defendants; (2) defendants took an action that disadvantaged him; and (3) a causal connection exists between the protected activity and the adverse action” (Fletcher v Dakota, 99 AD3d 43, 51 [1st Dept 2012]; Forrest, 3 NY3d at 312-313). Courts are to “construe Administrative Code § 8-107 (7), like other provisions of the City’s Human Rights Law, broadly in favor of discrimination plaintiffs, to the extent that such a construction is reasonably possible” (Fletcher, 99 AD3d at 50 [internal quotations and citations omitted]).
The SAC alleges that the Plaintiff complained about Lafayette’s treatment of foreign-born, visa-dependent employees and objected to disparities in pay and opportunities between himself and U.S.-born employees performing equal or junior work. Those alleged objections constitute opposition to conduct he believed to be discriminatory, which is protected activity for the purposes of both the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL (see Fletcher, 99 AD3d at 51; Forrest, 3 NY3d at 312-313). The SAC additionally alleges that the Lafayette Defendants were aware of these objections and thereafter reduced the Plaintiff’s responsibilities, imposed less favorable conditions, and ultimately terminated his employment.
The court concluded that these allegations, taken as true and afforded all favorable inferences, are sufficient to support a plausible inference of retaliatory motive at the pleading stage.