In Suarez v. E & N Chop Shop, Inc. et al, No. 2:25-CV-4517 (NJC) (ARL), 2026 WL 2720123 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2026), the court, inter alia, recommended the denial of defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s discrimination/hostile work environment claims asserted under the New York State Human Rights Law.
Here, the plaintiff asserted that he was discriminated against on the basis of national origin and immigration status in violation of the NYSHRL, and that he was terminated on this basis.
Initially, the court concluded that the NYSHRL was not preempted by the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA).
As to the timeliness of plaintiff’s claims, the court explained:
The statute of limitations for Plaintiff’s NYSHRL claims is three years, other than with respect to Plaintiff’s claim for hostile work environment, which is governed the continuing violation exception. See Shomo v. City of New York, 579 F.3d 176, 181 (2d Cir. 2009) (“The Court applied the continuing violation doctrine because a hostile work environment claim challenges ‘repeated conduct’ that ‘occurs over a series of days or perhaps years and, in direct contrast to discrete acts, a single act of harassment may not be actionable on its own.’ ”) (quoting Morgan, 536 U.S. at 115); Sotomayor v. City of New York, 862 F. Supp. 2d 226, 251 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (“To the extent that these discrete acts cumulatively create a hostile work environment, the continuing violations doctrine may save these claims under the NYSHRL.”), aff’d, 713 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2013).
Many of the acts complained of by Plaintiff occurred between 2023 and 2025, thus all discrimination claims based upon these occurrences are timely. See, e.g., ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 24, 26, 29. With respect to Plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim, in National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, the Supreme Court explained that “a hostile work environment claim … will not be time barred so long as all acts which constitute the claim are part of the same unlawful employment practice and at least one act falls within the time period.” 536 U.S. 101, 122, 122 S. Ct. 2061, 153 L. Ed. 2d 106 (2002). Indeed, “the continuing-violation exception should be applied to hostile work environment claims because such claims challenge ‘repeated conduct’ that ‘occurs over a series of days or perhaps years.’ ” Bermudez v. City of New York, 783 F. Supp. 2d 560, 582 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (quoting Morgan, 536 U.S. at 115). Thus, “so long as one act is within the limitations period, all of the acts can be relied on to show a hostile work environment.” Bermudez, 783 F. Supp. 2d at 582; see also Shomo, 579 F.3d at 181; Washington v. County of Rockland, 373 F.3d 310, 318 (2d Cir. 2004).
Accordingly, the court concluded that, since the majority of the acts noted by Plaintiff occurred within the three year limitation period, it would recommend that defendants’ motion to dismiss on this basis be denied.