In Roman v. The Dept. of Educ. of the City of New York, No. 527576/2025, 2026 WL 2959089 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sep. 15, 2026), the court, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims of retaliation asserted under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.
From the decision:
Pursuant to Executive Law § 296, it is unlawful to retaliate against an employee because he or she opposed statutorily forbidden discriminatory practices” (Adeniran v State of New York, 106 AD3d 844, 844 [2d Dept 2013]). “To make a prima facie showing of retaliation under Executive Law § 296, a plaintiff must show that (1) he or she has engaged in protected activity, (2) the employer was aware that the plaintiff participated in such activity, (3) the plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action based upon that activity, and (4) there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action. An employee engages in a protected activity by opposing or complaining about unlawful discrimination” (Brunache v MV Transp., Inc., 151 AD3d 1011, 1013-1014 [2d Dept 2017] [internal quotations and citation marks omitted]; see Diluglio v Liberty Mut. Group, Inc., 230 AD3d 643, 645 [2d Dept 2024]).
After oral argument and upon a review of the parties’ papers and the relevant law, the Court finds that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that she she suffered an adverse employment action based upon her engagement in any protected activity. In addition, the temporal proximity between a protected activity (that is, the filing of the October 27, 2023 complaint with the Division) and her September 18, 2024 termination does not give rise to an inference of discrimination (see Margarita v Mountain Time Health, LLC, 240 AD3d 584, 587 [2d Dept 2025]). Moreover, plaintiff admits that she disclosed a student’s confidential information to the Division; namely, the “student’s personal identity, Individual Educational Program (‘IEP’) service details, and special needs to the SDHR” (defendant’s Memorandum of Law, p. 3, NYSCEF Doc #5). This ultimately led to plaintiff’s termination. As such, the Court finds that plaintiff has failed to make a causal connection between either her alleged age, or any disability, and her termination (see generally Simeone v County of Suffolk, 36 AD3d 890 [2d Dept 2007]).
Notably, “[t]he NYCHRL [New York City Human Rights Law] prohibits retaliation or discrimination against individuals who have exercised their rights under the NYCHRL” (J.B. v City of New York, 231 AD3d 696, 699 [2d Dept 2024], internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In the case at bar, even according plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference and accepting the facts as alleged in complaint as true, the Court finds that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that defendant retaliated against plaintiff because she opposed a practice forbidden under the NYCHRL.
Accordingly, dismissal was warranted.