In Acevedo v. City of New York, No. 163520/2025, 2026 WL 2839089 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sep. 11, 2026), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s retaliation claim under the New York City Human Rights Law.
From the decision:
The City argues plaintiff fails to plead that defendant Murray retaliated against plaintiff after plaintiff engaged in a protected activity. Specifically, the City highlights that the Complaint only alleges in a conclusory manner that plaintiff was subjected to “retaliation after requesting an accommodation, a protected activity” without stating when he requested an accommodation, what accommodation was requested or how he was retaliated against. Furthermore, the City argues that plaintiff does not allege what adverse act defendant Murray committed upon plaintiff, as plaintiff alleges that he submitted papers for retirement himself. The City notes, notwithstanding plaintiff’s allegations that he was repeatedly told he would be surveyed off the job between December 2024 and October 2025, plaintiff was, in fact, never surveyed off the job. Therefore, the City argues Plaintiff’s retaliation claim against defendant Murray should be dismissed.
In opposition, plaintiff argues the Complaint establishes that he engaged in protected activity when he objected to defendant Mack’s sexual advances and filed a formal OEEO sexual-harassment complaint on June 24, 2024. Additionally, plaintiff notes when he met with defendant Murray, he was deemed disabled. As such, plaintiff argues these allegations suffice to plead employer notice and to trigger the duty to consider reasonable accommodations, and such failures to accommodate would support a retaliation claim. Plaintiff argues that the continuing threats of survey used as a retaliatory tool is enough to allege the adverse actions taken by defendant Murray at the pleading stage. In addition, plaintiff contends that defendant Murray was aware that plaintiff had reported defendant Mack’s sexual assault and harassment through NYPD channels, and Murray’s subsequent threats that Plaintiff would be surveyed from the job occurred after and in response to that protected activity
Both the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL make it an unlawful employment practice to retaliate against a person who has opposed discrimination (Executive Law § 296 [7]; Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-107 [7]). “Under the State Human Rights Law, a claim for retaliation requires that the employee has engaged in a protected activity, (2) of which the employer was aware, (3) the employer suffered an adverse employment action, and (4) there is a casual connection between the protected activity and the adverse action” (Franco v Hyatt Corp., 189 AD3d 569, 571 [1st Dept 2020]). “Under the City Human Rights Law, the retaliatory act complained of need only be ‘reasonably likely to deter a person from engaging in a protected activity’ ” (id. [internal citations omitted).
To make out a claim of retaliation under the State HRL, the complaint must allege that (1) [plaintiff] engaged in a protected activity by opposing conduct prohibited thereunder; (2) defendants were aware of that activity; (3) [plaintiff] was subject to adverse action; and (4) there was a casual connection between the protected activity and the adverse action” (Fletcher v. Dakota, Inc., 99 AD3d 43, 51, [1st Dept 2012]). “[T]o make out a retaliation claim under the City HRL, the complaint must allege that: (1) [plaintiff] participated in a protected activity known to defendants; (2) defendants took an action that disadvantaged him; and (3) a causal connection exists between the protected activity and the adverse action (id.)
Here, plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that engaged in protected activity when he objected to defendant Mack’s sexual advances and filed a formal OEEO sexual-harassment complaint on June 24, 2024. Further, plaintiff’s Complaint also alleges that he suffered a disadvantageous act as he was removed from the School Safety Intel Team and demoted back to School Safety Patrol less than two weeks following his OEOO Complaint.
(Citations omitted.)
Therefore, held the court, plaintiff sufficiently stated a retaliation claim.