You are here: / / PLAINTIFF STATED A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT CAUSE OF ACTION WITH THE ALLEGATION...
,

PLAINTIFF STATED A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT CAUSE OF ACTION WITH THE ALLEGATION (AMONG OTHERS) THAT HIS ACCENT WAS MOCKED, BUT PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTATE HIS DEMOTION WAS RELATED TO SUCH ANIMUS; THERFORE THE DISCRIMINATION CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s employment discrimination claims under the NYS and NYC Human Rights Law stemming from his demotions should have been dismissed:

The discrimination claims should not have been allowed to proceed. Defendants proffered evidence supporting several legitimate reasons for demoting him from his provisional managerial position, including (1) an agency-wide restructuring, (2) plaintiff’s lack of accounting and management skills, and (3) evidence that he was a poor manager whose routinely hostile demeanor demoralized his subordinates, as evidenced by complaints made against him by several of those subordinates …  In the face of this evidence, plaintiff failed to come forward with any evidence raising an issue of fact as to whether these reasons were mere pretext for discrimination (under the State HRL) or whether discrimination was one of the motivating factors for the demotion (under the City HRL) … . Plaintiff presented no evidence of any disparity between defendants’ treatment of him and defendants’ treatment of employees of other races or ethnicities under similar circumstances. While plaintiff’s allegations of remarks that could be interpreted as derogatory or indicative of animus suffice to support the hostile work environment claim … plaintiff fails to identify any evidence connecting such animus, if any, to the decision to demote him … . Kwong v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 02342, First Dept 4-7-22

Practice Point: Facts sufficient to state a cause of action for a hostile work environment do not necessarily state a cause of action for employment discrimination. A connection must be made between the hostile work environment claims (here allegations plaintiff’s accent was mocked) and the discrimination (here a demotion).

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF TAX RETURNS AFTER THE PARTIES’ FAILURE TO RESPOND TO THE DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED; THE FAILURE TO RESPOND TO A PALPABLY IMPROPER DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION, I.E. A DEMAND FOR TAX RETURNS, DOES NOT WAIVE THE ABILITY TO OBJECT TO THE DEMAND ON APPEAL; DEFENDANT MAY RENEW THE MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF THE TAX RETURNS IF THE REQUIRED SHOWINGS ARE MADE (FIRST DEPT).
PETITIONERS’ EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION CLAIMS UNDER THE STATE AND CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW AGAINST THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELL FROM AN A-FRAME LADDER OWNED BY A CONTRACTOR, DAL, HE DID NOT WORK FOR; BASED ON DISPUTED EVIDENCE THE LADDER WAS DEFECTIVE, DAL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION WAS DENIED BY SUPREME COURT; THE FIRST DEPARTMENT, OVER A DISSENT, REVERSED, FINDING DAL DID NOT OWE PLAINTIFF A DUTY OF CARE (FIRST DEPT). ​
Res Ipsa Loquitur Applied to Garage Door Suddenly Coming Down
THE DECISION TO CALL OR NOT CALL A WITNESS IS ENTIRELY THE PROVINCE OF DEFENSE COUNSEL, WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANT AGREES.
EXPERT DISCLOSURE NOTICE NEED NOT DISCLOSE FACTS AND OPINIONS ABOUT WHICH EXPERT WILL TESTIFY, LATE EXPERT DISCLOSURE NOTICE FOR A REBUTTAL WITNESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED.
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 241(6) ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
THE FACT THAT THE POLICE WERE AWARE THE VAN THEY STOPPED HAD REPORTEDLY BEEN INVOLVED IN TWO PRIOR INCIDENTS—(1) A ROAD RAGE SHOOTING AND (2) NEARLY RUNNING OVER A TRAFFIC AGENT ABOUT TO ISSUE A PARKING TICKET—PROVIDED REASONABLE SUSPICION SUPPORTING THE LEVEL THREE TRAFFIC STOP, DESPITE THE FACT THE POLICE DID NOT KNOW WHO WAS DRIVING THE VAN DURING THE PRIOR INCIDENTS (FIRST DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE JUDGE, IN DENYING DEFENDANT’S SECOND MOTION TO SET ASIDE HIS SENTENCE,... LOSS OF RESTAURANT CUSTOMERS DUE TO COVID DOES NOT CONSTITUTE “DIRECT...