In Pisano v. City of New York, No. 155026/2023, 2026 WL 2959208 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sep. 24, 2026), the court, inter alia, held that plaintiff sufficiently alleged a hostile work environment under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL).
From the decision:
To state a cause of action for hostile work environment under the NYCHRL a plaintiff must adequately allege that he was subject to unequal or less favorable treatment because of his membership in a protected class (Chin v New York City Hous. Auth., 106 AD3d 443, 445 [1st Dept 2013]). The standard under the NYCHRL is broader than under federal or state law, where the conduct must be severe or pervasive.
The City defendants argue that plaintiff fails to state a hostile work environment claim under the NYCHRL and with respect to defendants Dr. Flynn, Dr. Henry, and Dr. Kleinman. Specifically, they argue that plaintiff does not allege any factual allegations that might be considered to contribute to a hostile work environment.The City asserts that plaintiff’s allegations that he was discriminated against because he was found to be unfit for full duty because of his hip replacement and because of a discriminatory policy the NYPD has, both fail to show a hostile work environment.
In opposition, plaintiff argues that he easily meets the burden alleging hostile work environment. He relies on his claiming he was repeatedly threatened with termination in the form of being “surveyed’ as a result of his perceived disability and that his wife was forced to get a second job due to the financial strain as a result of disability discrimination.
Here, plaintiff has adequately pled a cause of action for hostile work environment. Plaintiff’s allegations that he was denied overtime and promotional opportunities due to his perceived disability are adequate to plead that he was treated differently or less well than non-disabled employees, and allegations that he was told he would likely be “surveyed” off the job have been found to sufficiently allege facts that plaintiff was subjected to a hostile work environment (Wright v. City of New York, 2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 33942[U] 4 [Sup Ct, NY County 2022]; Marcus v. The City of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 34314[U], 4 [Sup Ct, NY County 2023]; Ayende v. The City of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 32970[U], 6 [Sup Ct, NY County 2023]; Pesantez v. The City of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 32249[U][Sup Ct, NY County 2023]; Thomas v. City of New York, 2024 WL 2274935, at *5 [Sup Ct, NY County 2024]).
Accordingly, the court held that dismissal was not warranted.