You are here: / Human Rights Law
, ,

PLAINTIFF’S WORKPLACE GENDER-DISCRIMINATION CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a necessarily fact-specific decision, determined plaintiff’s employment-discrimination suit should not have been dismissed:

To establish a claim for gender discrimination under the Human Rights Law, a plaintiff must “show (1) that he or she was a member of a protected class, (2) that he or she suffered an adverse employment action, (3) that he or she was qualified to hold the position for which he or she suffered the adverse employment action, and (4) that the adverse employment action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination” … . “Verbal comments can serve as evidence of discriminatory motivation when a plaintiff shows a nexus between the discriminatory remarks and the employment action at issue” … . “Employers are . . . required to provide reasonable avenues for discrimination and harassment complaints, to respond appropriately to such complaints, and to take reasonable steps to eliminate the harmful conduct; where they fail to do so, they are subject to liability under [the Human Rights Law]” … . * * *

The gravamen of plaintiff’s allegations is that Gulnick’s [plaintiff’s immediate boss’s] sexist views toward women fostered a workplace where women’s legitimate grievances were met with dismissal and ridicule, and conflicts that would otherwise have been dealt with were instead allowed to fester. When plaintiff sought to have her valid claims of harassment addressed in-house and ultimately in an outside mediation, Gulnick’s rebuke of her efforts envenomed with discriminatory commentary turned to anger, ultimately leading to plaintiff’s demotion and decrease in wages. Mikesh v County of Ulster, 2025 NY Slip Op 01987, Third Dept 4-3-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a detailed fact-specific analysis of the criteria for a prima facie demonstration of gender discrimination in the workplace.​

 

, , , ,

PURSUANT TO THE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, PROPERTY OWNERS (LANDLORDS) MAY BE HELD VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE DISCRIMINATORY CONDUCT OF THEIR AGENTS IN DEALING WITH PROSPECTIVE TENANTS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kennedy, determined the owners of housing accommodations may be vicariously liable (pursuant to the NYC Human Rights Law) for discrimination by their agents who deal with prospective tenants. Here plaintiff is an indigent person with AIDS. The complaint alleges he was denied housing by defendant, who acted as an agent for defendant property owners:

… [A]bsent vicarious liability, landlords would evade liability under the City HRL except when they directly interact with a prospective tenant. This is neither the mandate of the statute, nor supported by the legislative intent behind § 8-107 of the City HRL … .

The text of the City HRL also supports the imposition of vicarious liability upon landlords. Specifically, the key statutory remedy in the City HRL for housing discrimination is to approve the rental and to provide housing (see Administrative Code § 8-120[a][7]). Moreover, §§ 8-122 and 8-502 permit a tenant allegedly aggrieved by discriminatory practices to seek injunctive relief. In the absence of vicarious liability against owners, who have title to the prospective property, these remedies would be unavailable and rendered meaningless … . Newson v Vivaldi Real Estate LTD., 2025 NY Slip Op 00052, First Dept 1-7-25

Practice Point: Pursuant to the NYC Human Rights Law, landlords may be vicariously liable for the discriminatory conduct of their agents in dealing with prospective tenants.

 

, , , , ,

AFTER THE DEATH OF THE COOPERATIVE OWNER, THE BOARD REFUSED TO TREAT PETITIONER AS DECEDENT’S “SPOUSE” WHICH WOULD AUTHORIZE AN AUTOMATIC TRANSFER OF DECEDENT’S LEASE AND SHARES; THE MAJORITY, OVER TWO DISSENTING OPINIONS, DETERMINED THE BOARD’S REFUSAL TO TREAT PETITIONER, WHO WAS NOT MARRIED TO DECEDENT, AS A “SPOUSE” DID NOT CONSTITUTE DISCRIMINATION BASED ON “MARITAL STATUS” (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, over two dissenting opinions, determined the cooperative board did not discriminate against the petitioner when it declined to treat petitioner as the decedent-cooperative-owner’s “spouse” for the purpose of transferring decedent’s shares to petitioner:

Petitioner Maryanne McCabe resided for 13 years in a New York City cooperative building with her “long-time romantic partner,” David Burrows. Upon Burrows’ death, he willed his real property, including his unit in the building, to petitioner, who then sought to acquire his lease and shares under a lease provision authorizing an automatic transfer to a shareholder’s “spouse.” The cooperative board declined to treat petitioner as a spouse but offered to consider whether she could retain the lease and shares under a clause covering a shareholder’s family member. Petitioner argues that the board’s failure to treat her as a spouse for purposes of the automatic transfer provision violated the prohibition against discrimination on the basis of marital status under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) (see Administrative Code of City of New York § 8-107 [5]). We disagree. * * *

The two were neither married nor in a registered domestic partnership, and petitioner was never added as a shareholder of his unit. Burrows bequeathed his apartment to petitioner when he passed away … . * * *

The NYCHRL does not define “marital status,” but Black’s Law Dictionary defines it as “[t]he condition of being single, married, legally separated, divorced, or widowed” (Black’s Law Dictionary [12th ed 2024], marital status). Along the same lines is the general understanding: “when one is queried about one’s ‘marital status,’ the usual and complete answer would be expected to be a choice among ‘married,’ ‘single,’ etc.” … . A plain reading of the term, then, is that marital status reflects the legal condition of being single, married, legally separated, divorced, or widowed. Marital status turns on whether an individual has “participated or failed to participate in a marriage …”. Matter of McCabe v 511 W. 232nd Owners Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 06290, CtApp 12-17-24

Practice Point: The cooperative board’s refusal to treat a “long time romantic partner” of the decedent-cooperative-owner as decedent’s “spouse” for purposes of an automatic transfer of the lease and shares did not constitute discrimination on the basis of “marital status” under the NYC Human Rights Law.

 

, , , , ,

THE “MINISTERIAL EXCEPTION” IS GROUNDED IN THE FIRST AMEMDMENT AND MAY RESTRICT A STATE AGENCY’S REVIEW OF EMPLOYMENT DECISIONS MADE BY RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS; THE EXCEPTION IS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, NOT A JURISDICTIONAL BAR, TO A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ACTION UNDER THE NYS HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, reversing the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR) and the Appellate Division, determined the so-called “ministerial exception” was not a jurisdictional bar to the Nigerian priest’s, Ibhawa’s, hostile work environment claim under the NYS Human Rights Law. The “ministerial exception” is grounded in the First Amendment and may restrict state interference with employment decisions made by religious institutions.. The Court of Appeals clarified that the ministerial exception is an affirmative defense in an employment discrimination action against a religious institution, not a jurisdictional bar to bringing the case:

Ibhawa filed an employment complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR) in November 2020, claiming that the Diocese had engaged in discriminatory employment practices in violation of the New York Human Rights Law (see Executive Law art 15). Ibhawa alleged that he had experienced racial discrimination at the Diocese, including from an employee who directed a racial slur at him and a parishioner who made xenophobic remarks to him. He further alleged that the Diocesan officials to whom he reported the incidents declined to investigate them, questioned his decision to terminate the employee who had used a racial slur, and made “highly insulting and offensive” remarks about “foreign priests.” At a subsequent meeting, two Diocesan officials offered to buy Ibhawa a plane ticket to Nigeria and told him that the “Bishop could remove [his] faculties.” Shortly afterwards, the Diocese informed Ibhawa that his employment had been terminated and his priestly faculties removed, which meant that that he could not apply for a position as a priest in the Diocese. The Diocese eventually hired a white priest to replace him. Based on these assertions, Ibhawa alleged claims of hostile work environment and unlawful termination on the basis of race and national origin. He sought, among other remedies, compensatory and punitive damages. * * *

DHR’s order dismissing Ibhawa’s hostile work environment claim was affected by an error of law. After noting the parties’ agreement that Ibhawa was “a priest serving as the pastor (Parish Administrator) of a church,” DHR found that his complaint “comes under the ministerial exception (relative to the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution).” On that basis, DHR concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over Ibhawa’s claims. This determination was contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court’s express holding that the “exception operates as an affirmative defense to an otherwise cognizable claim, not a jurisdictional bar” … . Matter of Ibhawa v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 2024 NY Slip Op 05872, CtApp 11-26-24

Practice Point: The “ministerial exception” is grounded in the First Amendment and may restrict a state agency’s review of employment decisions made by religious institutions. The exception is an affirmative defense, not a jurisdictional bar, to a hostile work environment action brought by a priest against his employer.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S SUIT AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER UNDER THE WHISTLEBLOWER LAW (LABOR LAW 740) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE THE AMENDMENTS TO THE STATUTE APPLY RETROACTIVELY TO PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS; PLAINTIFF’S AGE-DISCRIMINATION CAUSES OF ACTION UNDER THE STATE AND NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined amendments to the  Whistleblower Law (Labor Law 740) applied retroactively. Therefore plaintiff could sue based upon events which preceded the amendments. In addition, the First Department held plaintiff’s age-discrimination claims pursuant to the state and NYC Human Right Law should not have been dismissed:

Plaintiff states that he made numerous complaints to management at the hotel where he was employed. He complained that the windows lacked safety bars and were left wide open, that a fire exit was blocked by flammable materials, and that the hotel lacked permits for construction work. Plaintiff was later terminated. Because plaintiff failed to prove that an actual violation had occurred, his claim for retaliation would not have withstood summary judgment under the Whistleblower Law in effect at the time … . The Whistleblower Law has since been amended in this respect. It now covers activity “that the employee reasonably believes” violates law or poses a danger to the public (Labor Law § 740 [2] [a] …). …

We now find that the Whistleblower Law has retroactive application because the amendment at issue was remedial in nature … . * * *

… [P]laintiff submitted evidence that the hotel’s general manager, who participated in the decision to terminate plaintiff, told front desk managers about a plan to fill front desk positions “with young and attractive individuals,” naming as examples two front desk agents in their twenties. The hotel’s list of front desk employees hired between 2006 and 2012 shows that plaintiff was the oldest and that the two most recent hires were decades younger.

Plaintiff’s evidence that the hotel had twice attempted to terminate him for reasons found by arbitrators to be unsubstantiated, failed to interview him about the incident giving rise to his third termination, and prohibited testimony favorable to him from being offered at his third arbitration, as well as evidence that the arbitrator found plaintiff’s grievance to be a close case, could lead a reasonable jury to conclude that defendants’ proffered reason for the termination was “false, misleading, or incomplete” … . Therefore, the evidence supports an inference of age discrimination sufficient to reach a jury … . Spiegel v 226 Realty LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 05076, First Dept 10-15-24

Practice Point: The amendments to the Whistleblower Law (Labor Law 740) were found by the First Department to apply retroactively to plaintiff’s allegations.​

Practice Point: Plaintiff made out a prima facie case of age-discrimination under the state and city Human Rights Law.

 

, , , ,

COMPLAINT ALLEGING THE NEW YORK CITY PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM DISCRIMINATES AGAINST STUDENTS OF COLOR AND SEEKING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Moulton, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint alleging the New York City public school system discriminates against Black and Latinx students and seeking injunctive relief was justiciable and stated valid causes of action. Therefore the complaint, which had been dismissed, is now reinstated. The opinion is comprehensive and far too detailed to fairly summarize here:

Plaintiffs allege that State and City policies create a “racialized” admission pipeline. According to plaintiffs, the pipeline begins with a single standardized test for the City’s Gifted & Talented (G&T) programs taken by children as young as four-years-old. The G&T test, plaintiffs assert, disproportionately benefits “privileged” white students and their “in-the-know” parents, who have the “navigational capital” to understand the admissions process and the economic capital to pay for expensive test preparation. The G&T programs, plaintiffs allege, provide superior academic preparation, which allows primarily white and Asian students to continue through the pipeline to academically screened middle and high schools, relegating Black and Latinx students to unscreened schools, often in poorly maintained buildings with limited extracurricular programs. The end of the pipeline, or “zenith” as plaintiffs describe it, is admission to one of eight New York City specialized high schools based on the results of the Special High School Admissions Test (the SHSAT).* * *

The pipeline, plaintiffs claim, is designed to exclude Black and Latinx students from the City’s prime educational opportunities. According to plaintiffs, the State and the City “intentionally adopted” and “for decades have intentionally retained—with no pedagogical basis—testing-based sorting that they know excludes students of color from equal educational opportunities.” This knowledge was acquired, plaintiffs allege, “through decades of experience and reflected in [defendants] own admissions” including the knowledge of the public school system’s “racist character and outcomes.” Despite this knowledge, plaintiffs allege that the State and the City “intentionally refuse to dismantle . . . its racialized channeling system.” IntegrateNYC, Inc. v State of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 02369, First Dept 5-2-24

Practice Point: Here Supreme Court’s conclusion that the suit seeking injunctive relief from discriminatory education policies and procedures in the New York City public school system was not “justiciable” was rejected.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF BROUGHT AN EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION ACTION IN FEDERAL COURT; DEFENDANTS WERE AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE FEDERAL ACTION; BECAUSE THE FEDERAL COURT DID NOT EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF’S NYS AND NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF PURSUED THEM IN STATE COURT; HOWEVER ALL THE STATE ISSUES HAD BEEN ADDRESSED IN THE FEDERAL ACTION; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL PRECLUDED THE STATE ACTION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over an extensive dissenting opinion, determined that the employment discrimination and retaliation claims brought by plaintiff adjunct professor against New York University under the NYS and NYC Human Rights Law were precluded by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Plaintiff had brought a federal action based upon the same facts which was dismissed, but the District Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state and city Human Rights Law causes of action. Plaintiff therefore could pursue those causes of action in state court. But because all the issues had been sufficiently dealt with by the federal court, the collateral estoppel doctrine was triggered:

The courts below properly applied our established principles of collateral estoppel in the context of the unique requirements of the City Human Rights Law. Collateral estoppel “bars the relitigation of an issue of fact or law actually litigated and resolved in a valid court determination essential to the prior judgment” and so “the determination of an essential issue is binding in a subsequent action, even if it recurs in the context of a different claim” … . If there is identity of issues between the prior determination and the instant litigation, and the precluded party had a full and fair opportunity to contest the prior determination, collateral estoppel applies and the prior determination is binding in the subsequent action … . Russell v New York Univ., 2024 NY Slip Op 02226, CtApp 4-25-24

Practice Point: In an employment discrimination and retaliation case brought in federal court, a plaintiff can ask the federal court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over New York State and New York City Human Rights Law causes of action. Where, as here, the federal court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, the plaintiff may pursue those actions in state court. Here, because plaintiff lost the federal case, and all the issues raised in the state case were addressed in the federal case, the doctrine of collateral estoppel precluded the state action.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S DEMAND FOR MONETARY DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF IN THIS EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CASE DID NOT WAIVE THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL; PLAINTIFF COULD BE MADE WHOLE ENTIRELY BY A MONETARY AWARD (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the demand for both money damages and equitable relief in this employment discrimination case did not waive plaintiff’s right to a jury trial. The plaintiff could be made whole entirely with money damages:

CPLR 4101(1) provides, in pertinent part, that “issues of fact shall be tried by a jury, unless a jury trial is waived,” in any action “in which a party demands and sets forth facts which would permit a judgment for a sum of money only.” The “deliberate joinder of claims for legal and equitable relief arising out of the same transaction” may constitute a waiver of the right to a jury trial … . However, the right to a jury trial must be determined by the facts alleged in the complaint and not by the prayer for relief … , and “[w]here a plaintiff alleges facts upon which monetary damages alone will afford full relief, inclusion of a demand for equitable relief in the complaint’s prayer for relief will not constitute a waiver of the right to a jury trial” … . A jury trial will not be waived if the equitable relief sought by the plaintiff is “incidental to [his or her] demand for money damages” … .

Here, the gravamen of the plaintiff’s action is to recover damages for employment discrimination. Therefore, the character of the action is essentially legal, and even though the prayer for relief in the complaint contains demands for equitable relief, only an award of monetary damages would afford the plaintiff a full and complete remedy … . Blackman v Metropolitan Tr. Auth., 2024 NY Slip Op 01530, Second Dept 3-20-24

Practice Point: Although a demand for equitable relief may waive the right to a jury trial, here there was no waiver because plaintiff could be made whole with a monetary award.

 

,

​ THE DENIAL OFTHE NON-RESIDENT’S APPLICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT IN NEW YORK CITY IS SUBJECT TO THE EMPLOYMENT-DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITIONS IN THE NEW YORK CITY AND NEW YORK STATE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (CT APP).

The Second Department, answering a certified question from the Second Circuit, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, determined that the denial of an non-New-York-resident’s application for employment in New York City is subject to the prohibitions of employment discrimination under the NYS and NYC Human Rights Law. Plaintiff was employed by defendant in Washington DC and sought, but was denied, a new position with the defendant in New York City:

… [A] nonresident who has been discriminatorily denied a job in New York City or State loses the chance to work, and perhaps live, within those geographic areas. The prospective employee personally feels the impact of a discriminatory refusal to promote or hire in New York City or State, because that is where the person wished to work (and perhaps relocate) and where they were denied the chance to do so. When applying the required liberal construction of “inhabitants” and “individual within this state” (Executive Law § 290 [3]; Administrative Code § 8-101), a prospective inhabitant or employee, who was denied a job opportunity because of discriminatory conduct, fits comfortably within the Human Rights Laws’ protection. Syeed v Bloomberg L.P., 2024 NY Slip Op 01330, CtApp 3-14-24

Practice Point: Plaintiff worked for defendant in Washington DC and sought, but was denied, a new position with defendant in New York City. Although a non-resident, plaintiff could bring a failure-to-hire/failure-to-promote employment-discrimination action in New York pursuant to the NYC and NYS Human Rights Law.

 

, , ,

A LETTER FROM AN ATTORNEY THREATENING LITIGATION CAN CONSTITUTE “RETALIATION” AGAINST THOSE WHO MAKE HOUSING DICSRIMINATION COMPLAINTS PURSUANT TO THE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, reversing the Appellate Division, determined a letter sent by an attorney for the landlord, Pine Ridge, to the respondent CityVision, a not-for-profit corporation which tests whether housing facilities engage in discrimination, constituted “retaliation” against those who make discrimination complaints. Here a CityVision employee, Renner, posed as a prospective tenant and allegedly was steered to a different apartment complex because she had children (discrimination based on familial status). CityVision’s complaint to the NYS Division of Human Rights (DHR) was dismissed. An attorney for Pine Ridge then sent a letter to CityVision which mentioned seeking damages. CityVision then filed a second complaint alleging the letter constituted “retaliation:” Although the matter was remitted to DHR because it was CityVision’s, not Pine Ridge;s, burden to show it was engaged in a protected activity, the Court of Appeals held that the threat of litigation can constitute “retaliation” in this context.

… [A] plaintiff bears the burden to establish a prima facie retaliation claim … . To meet that burden, the plaintiff must show that (1) they have “engaged in protected activity,” (2) the defendant “was aware that” the plaintiff “participated in” the protected activity, (3) the plaintiff suffered adverse action based upon the activity, and (4) “there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action” (id.). Only the first and third elements of CityVision’s retaliation claim are at issue here. ***

… [T]he record established that [the attorney’s] letter “shocked” CityVision’s employees and forced CityVision to expend resources and “scramble . . . to locate counsel” to address the threat. … [I]t was rational for DHR to conclude that the threatening letter caused CityVision to divert resources and could have dissuaded a person from pursuing a discrimination claim to protect their rights under the Human Rights Law. Indeed, a potential plaintiff might be chilled from filing a discrimination complaint when weighing the harm caused by the threat of retaliatory litigation, let alone the injury potentially occasioned by actual retaliatory litigation. DHR’s determination that the litigation threat amounted to adverse action in this case was rational and, thus, supported by substantial evidence. Matter of Clifton Park Apts., LLC v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 2024 NY Slip Op 00793, CtApp 2-15-24

Practice Point: Here a not-for-profit filed a complaint against a landlord alleging housing discrimination. After the complaint was dismissed, an attorney for the landlord sent a letter to the not-for-profit arguably threatening litigation. The letter constituted “retaliation” within the meaning of the Human Rights Law.

 

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