You are here: / / Stray Remarks Doctrine Applied in Action Under New York City Human Rights...
,

Stray Remarks Doctrine Applied in Action Under New York City Human Rights Law

The First Department determined that the “stray remarks doctrine” applied to actions brought brought under the New York City Human Rights Law.  The court rejected the argument that a statement in an email written weeks after plaintiff’s termination was actionable, asserting the so-called “stray remarks doctrine:”

Plaintiff relies on one remark made in an email exchange that took place weeks after the decision to terminate him was made and that concerned the resolution of his union’s grievance following the termination. In the email, one of defendant’s employees responsible for making the decision to terminate plaintiff declined to reconsider the penalty because of the nature of plaintiff’s convictions and his concern about the liability that defendant would assume if plaintiff committed a similar crime while on company time. However, “[s]tray remarks such as [this], even if made by a decision maker, do not, without more, constitute evidence of discrimination” … .  Indeed, plaintiff did not demonstrate a nexus between the employee’s remark and the decision to terminate him… .

We decline to hold, as urged by plaintiff and amici, that the stray remarks doctrine may not be relied on in determining claims brought pursuant to the City Human Rights Law, even as we recognize the law’s “uniquely broad and remedial purposes” (Bennett, 92 AD3d at 34 [internal quotation marks omitted]). The doctrine is not inconsistent with the intentions of the law, since statements “constitute evidence of discriminatory motivation when a plaintiff demonstrates that a nexus exists between the allegedly discriminatory statements and a defendant’s decision to discharge the plaintiff” … . Godbolt v Verizon NY Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 01561, 1st Dept 3-11-14

 

You might also like
SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS NOT TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE LESSEE OF THE PROPERTY WAS AN OWNER OR AGENT OF THE OWNER FOR LABOR LAW PURPOSES, PROPERTY MANAGER WAS NOT LIABLE IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A ROOF (FIRST DEPT).
HANDGUN FOUND IN A COAT IN A CLOSET BY A PAROLE OFFICER WITH A PAROLE ABSCONDER WARRANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT).
EMERGENCY DOCTRINE DOES NOT USUALLY APPLY IN REAR-END COLLISION CASES, VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW RE FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY CAN BE VIOLATED EVEN WHEN THERE IS NO COLLISION, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SUDDEN-STOP BUS-PASSENGER INJURY CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
STOP AND ARREST OF PLAINTIFF PURSUANT TO NYC’S STOP AND FRISK POLICY STATED VALID CAUSES OF ACTION PURSUANT TO 42 USC 1983 AGAINST THE POLICE OFFICERS AND THE CITY (FIRST DEPT).
Erasure of Audio Recording Constituted Negligent Spoliation of Evidence Under New York Common Law—No Need to Turn to Federal Law Re: Preservation of Electronically Stored Information
THE COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT BECAUSE IT DID NOT ADEQUATELY ALLEGE “OUT OF POCKET” DAMAGES (FIRST DEPT).
Negligence and “1983” Causes of Action Against the City and/or City Employees Stemming from the Alleged Failure to Provide Medical Assistance to a Rikers Island Inmate Reinstated

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

“In Transit” Means Between Destinations, Even If “At Rest... Question of Fact Whether Owner of Servient State Had Duty to Maintain Easement...