You are here: / / UNDER THE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, PLAINTIFF NEED NOT DEMONSTRATE...
, ,

UNDER THE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, PLAINTIFF NEED NOT DEMONSTRATE AN ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION TO RECOVER FOR GENDER DISCRIMINATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s gender discrimination action under the NYC Human Rights Law (City HRL) should not have been dismissed:

Since “[t]he City HRL does not differentiate between sexual harassment and other forms of gender discrimination, but requires that sexual harassment be viewed as one species of sex- or gender-based discrimination” … , it was error to grant summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s gender discrimination claim, while denying the motion with respect to the hostile work environment and sexual harassment claim. Moreover, plaintiff need not show an adverse employment action in order to establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination under the City HRL … . On this motion for summary judgment dismissing a claim under the City HRL, defendant bore the burden of showing that, based on the record evidence and drawing all reasonable inferences in plaintiff’s favor, no jury could find defendant liable for gender-based discrimination … . Here, plaintiff submits sufficient evidence to support her assertions that, after she rejected her supervisor’s sexual advances, she was unjustifiably criticized for her work product and attendance by her supervisors and was stripped of her assignments, which permits a finding that she was treated “less well” based on her gender … . Bond v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 01939, First Dept 4-13-23

Practice Point: Under the New York City Human Rights Law a plaintiff need only show she was treated “less well” based on her gender. No adverse employment action is required.

 

You might also like
Action for Contingency Fee; No Demonstration Law Firm Had Been Discharged
POLICE OFFICER WAS RESPONDING TO AN EMERGENCY AND WAS NOT ACTING IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS WHEN THE POLICE CAR STRUCK PLAINTIFF WHO WAS STANDING IN THE ROAD, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT). 
MOTION FOR RESENTENCING PROPERLY DENIED BECAUSE IT WAS MADE WITHIN THREE YEARS OF DEFENDANT’S PAROLE ELIGIBILITY DATE (FIRST DEPT).
DeBour Criteria Met in Street Encounter Leading to Arrest; Statements Tainted by Miranda Violations Did Not Preclude Admission of Statement Made Seven Hours Later
Termination of Petitioner’s Tenancy Based Upon An Isolated Angry Outburst Targeting a Housing Authority Employee Is “Shocking to the Conscience”
Plaintiff Did Not Adequately Allege a Presuit Demand Would Be Futile
IN A TRESPASS INVESTIGATION, DETAINING DEFENDANT AND RETAINING HIS ID TO CHECK WHETHER HAD, AS HE CLAIMED, VISITED HIS GIRLFRIEND AT A SPECIFIED APARTMENT IN THE COMPLEX WAS NOT A SEIZURE.
HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF CHARGES OF WHICH SEX OFFENDER WAS ACQUITTED AND CHARGES WHICH WERE DISMISSED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED.

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

​ THE PLAINTIFFS IN THIS SUIT AMONG BROTHERS ABOUT THE FATHER’S ESTATE... PETITIONER POLICE OFFICER WAS AWARE OF THE DEFECT IN THE FLOOR WHICH CAUSED...