In Syed v. Hellman & Friedman LLC, No. 165736/2025, 2026 WL 2354385 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 05, 2026), the court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims of discrimination and hostile work environment, but denied its motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims of retaliation, under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.
From the decision:
While her supervisor allegedly made a crass and insensitive joke that he had to “make sure to save some money for [his] condo in Gaza” this equates to an anti-Palestinian bias but not an anti-Muslim bias.1 Plaintiff does not allege that she is Palestinian or is discriminated against based on her national origin. Li150578202kewise, being asked to assist with a forum on the Middle East does not equate to anti-Muslim bias. While Plaintiff alleges someone at the forum asked her if she “was okay with” the October 7, 2023 terrorist attacks on Israel, she does not allege that this question came from anyone employed by Defendant, it is only alleged that someone in the audience asked her that. Nor can a simple question about beliefs regarding a horrific event in which Muslims were also killed give rise to any anti-Muslim bias. Moreover, Plaintiff suffered no adverse employment actions and continued to receive superb performance evaluations despite these allegedly sporadic comments. Under the circumstances alleged, Plaintiff fails to state a discrimination and hostile work environment claim under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL (see also Dume v City of New York, 250 AD3d 474 [1st Dept 2026]; Lent v City of New York, 209 AD3d 494, 494-495 [1st Dept 2022]; Thomas v Mintz, 182 AD3d 490, 490-491 [1st Dept 2020]).
However, for purposes of a pre-answer motion to dismiss, Plaintiff did sufficiently state a retaliation claim. The Complaint is replete with allegations of Plaintiff frequently complaining that she felt she was being harassed for being Muslim and frequently asking about the status of the investigation into her discrimination complaint. After the latest inquiry on October 3, 2025, she was told that her inquiry would be forwarded to Defendant’s head of human resources, Julia Kaufman. Less than one month later, Plaintiff was allegedly told she was being demoted despite receiving a “superb performance evaluation” on September 17, 2025.
Given the temporal proximity between these events, the fact her complaint was directed to the head of human resources, and considering Plaintiff supplemented her complaint by alleging the Chief Executive Officer stood nearby Plaintiff’s desk and yelled “she’s still f***ing here!” Plaintiff sufficiently alleged retaliation under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL for purposes of a pre-answer motion to dismiss (see, e.g. Judson v Eliott Management Corp., 250 AD3d 655 [1st Dept 2026] [retaliation claim survived summary judgment despite dismissal of hostile work environment and discrimination claims where plaintiff made complaint to human resources, previously had positive performance reviews, and shortly after complaint was subjected to increase scrutiny and ultimately terminated]).
Accordingly, the plaintiff’s retaliation claims will continue.