In Morse v. Fortune Soc’y, Inc., No. 2025–00777, 2026 WL 2416679 (N.Y. App. Div. Aug. 19, 2026), the court afirmed the denial of defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims of discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under the New York State and City Human Rights Law.
From the decision:
The NYSHRL . . . and the NYCHRL . . . prohibit discrimination in employment” on the basis of, inter alia, race and sex“ (Silvers v Jamaica Hosp., 218 AD3d 817, 819; see Executive Law § 296; Administrative Code of the City of New York § 8-107; Okeke v Interfaith Med. Ctr., 224 AD3d 763, 765). ”A plaintiff alleging discrimination in employment in violation of the NYSHRL must establish that (1) she or he is a member of a protected class, (2) she or he was qualified to hold the position, (3) she or he suffered an adverse employment action, and (4) the adverse action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination“ (Ayers v Bloomberg, L.P., 203 AD3d 872, 874). ”Under the NYCHRL, the plaintiff must establish that she or he was subject to an unfavorable employment change or treated less well than other employees on the basis of a protected characteristic“ (id.; see Okeke v Interfaith Med. Ctr., 224 AD3d at 765; Golston-Green v City of New York, 184 AD3d 24, 38).
A hostile work environment exists ”when the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment“ (Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d 295, 310 [alteration and internal quotation marks omitted]; see Bilitch v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 194 AD3d 999, 1002-1003; Beharry v Guzman, 33 AD3d 742, 743). ”Whether an environment is hostile or abusive can be determined only by looking at all the circumstances, including the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance“ (Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d at 310-311 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Bilitch v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 194 AD3d at 1003).
A plaintiff alleging retaliation in violation of the NYSHRL must show that (1) he or she engaged in a protected activity by opposing conduct prohibited thereunder; (2) the defendant was aware of that activity; (3) he or she suffered an adverse action based upon his or her activity; and (4) there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action “ (Bilitch v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 194 AD3d at 1004; see Keceli v Yonkers Racing Corp., 155 AD3d 1014, 1016). ”To make out an unlawful retaliation claim under the NYCHRL, a plaintiff must show that (1) he or she engaged in a protected activity as that term is defined under the NYCHRL, (2) his or her employer was aware that he or she participated in such activity, (3) his or her employer engaged in conduct which was reasonably likely to deter a person from engaging in that protected activity, and (4) there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the alleged retaliatory conduct.
(Citations omitted; cleaned up.)
Accordingly, plaintiff’s claims will continue.