In Kilvert v. City Winery, LLC, No. 161087/2024, 2026 WL 1847596 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 16, 2026), the court, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s motion to amend their complaint to add a claim of disability discrimination under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.
From the decision:
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 68, 64 n.1 [1st Dept 2020] [“this amendment is remarkably similar to the City HRL’s Restoration Act”]; Golston-Green v City of New York, 184 AD3d 24, 35 [2d Dept 2020]).
An employee alleging discrimination based upon disability status must show that they were a qualified individual with a disability and they suffered an adverse employment action due to that disability (see Hosking v memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 186 Ad3d 58 [1st Dept 2020]). 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]).
Plaintiff’s alleged depression qualifies as a disability under both the NYSCHRL and NYCHRL because it is a mental impairment which was allegedly diagnosed by a (Garcia v City University of New York, 136 AD3d 577, 578 [1st Dept 2016]). Plaintiff worked successfully at the company for a year and received promotions, creating an inference that he was qualified to hold his position. Plaintiff was fired shortly after revealing his diagnosis to City Winery executives which, for purposes of seeking leave to amend, shows an adverse employment action under circumstances giving rise to an inference of disability discrimination (see Friedman v Bloomberg, L.P., 230 AD3d 1060 [1st Dept 2024]) Thus, the facts alleged in the Amended Complaint with respect to the NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims are not patently without merit.
The allegations relating to Dorf’s individual involvement in the discrimination claims are similarly not patently without merit. The Amended Complaint states that Dorf was present in the meeting wherein Plaintiff revealed his disability and that he had been directly involved with all other major decisions regarding Plaintiff’s employment, including his promotion and salary negotiations (NYSCEF Doc. 37). These facts raise an inference, at least for purposes of a motion seeking leave to amend, that Dorf was a decision maker with involvement in the the alleged termination. Therefore, the cause of action against Dorf is not patently without merit.
The court further held that plaintiff’s proposed amendment as to the breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing was not devoid of merit:
Plaintiff alleges City Winery executives represented he would be reimbursed and the allegedly denied reimbursement requests followed the same procedure under which his prior requests were approved. He alleges the requests were only denied after he was terminated under allegedly retaliatory and discriminatory circumstances, which is sufficient to give rise to an inference of bad faith performance.
Accordingly, the proposed amendments were approved.