In Ouvrard v. Julien Farel, LLC, No. 161042/2020, 2026 WL 1590002 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 27, 2026), the court, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s national origin discrimination claims asserted under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.
From the decision:
Plaintiff alleges that defendants created a hostile work environment based on his national origin by prohibiting him from speaking French in the salon. Defendants, however, submit Farel’s deposition testimony, which establishes that, in an effort to better cater to the comfort of JF’s predominantly English-speaking clients, all JF employees were subject to a neutral policy that prohibited them from speaking any language other than English on the salon floor (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 129 at 113:13-114:4, 116:8-13, 122:9-20, 125:3-5). Defendants have thus articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for their challenged language policy, thereby shifting the burden back to plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the language policy, at least as applied to him, was motivated in whole or in part by discrimination. Plaintiff fails to do so.
Plaintiff’s sole argument in opposition with respect to his national origin claims is the conclusory assertion that “[d]efendants should welcome the use of French in the workplace” because it “adds further cache to the experience of receiving services from [d]efendants” and, as such, “[t]here is no legitimate business reason . . . [for] mandating that only English be spoken in the work place.” This argument is unavailing, as a discrimination plaintiff “must do more than challenge the employer’s decision as contrary to sound business or economic policy, since such an argument does not give rise to the inference that the [adverse action] was due to . . . discrimination” (Melman, 98 AD3d at 120-21).
Accordingly, the court held that dismissal was warranted.