You are here: / Human Rights Law
, ,

THE THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS UNDER THE NYS AND NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW IS TOLLED BY FILING A CHARGE FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION WITH THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (EEOC) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the age discrimination claims under the NYS and NYC Human Rights Law were timely brought because the three-year statute of limitations was tolled when plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC):

Plaintiff’s action, asserting claims of age discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law (Executive Law § 296[1][a]) and the New York City Human Rights Law (Administrative Code § 8-107), was timely commenced, as the three-year statute of limitations was tolled by her filing of a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) … . The filing of an EEOC charge constitutes a simultaneous and automatic filing with the New York State Division of Human Rights (SDHR) due to a work-sharing agreement between the two agencies … .

Moreover, Administrative Code § 8-502(d) provides, “[u]pon the filing of a complaint with the city commission on human rights or the state division of human rights and during the pendency of such complaint and any court proceeding for review of the dismissal of such complaint, such three-year limitations shall be tolled.” The interplay between the EEOC/SDHR work-sharing agreement and the tolling provision in § 8-502(d) “indicates that a charge filed with the EEOC would also toll the statute of limitations period for [City HRL] claims” … . Gabin v Greenwich House, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 06428, First Dept 11-15-22

Practice Point: Filing an age discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) tolls the three-year statute of limitation for filing age discrimination claims pursuant the NYS and NYC Human Rights Law.

 

, , ,

THE HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ALLEGATIONS STATED CLAIMS UNDER THE STATE AND CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (HRL); THE SEXUAL HARASSMENT ALLEGATIONS STATED A CLAIM UNDER ONLY THE CITY HRL; THE CONTINUING VIOLATION DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO ISOLATED STATEMENTS MADE OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff stated a hostile work environment claim under the state and city Human Rights Law (HRL) and sexual harassment claim under the city, but not the state, HRL: The isolated statement made outside the statute of limitations were not subject to the continuing violation doctrine:

Plaintiff’s allegations, that several times a week over a period of at least two years, plaintiff’s coworker spoke to him in a mock Chinese accent, told plaintiff to “open your eyes,” and tormented him about his mandatory drug testing in a sexually and racially charged manner, are sufficient to state a hostile work environment claim based on national origin discrimination under both the State and City HRLs … .

… [T]he allegations that his coworker regularly made statements about plaintiff’s penis size when plaintiff took bathroom breaks or reported for drug testing “fall within the broad range of conduct that falls between ‘severe and pervasive’ on the one hand and a ‘petty slight or trivial inconvenience’ on the other,” such that they are sufficient under the City HRL but not under the State HRL … . The continuing violation doctrine does not apply to the isolated statements made outside the limitations period because they do not form part of “a single continuing pattern of unlawful conduct extending into the [limitations] period . . . , but rather discrete events, involving different actors, occurring months to years apart” … . Lum v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 05594, First Dept 10-6-22

Practice Point: The allegations that a coworker spoke using a mock Chinese accent and told plaintiff “open your eyes” stated hostile work environment claims under the state and city Human Rights Law (HRL). The allegations that a coworker made comments about the size of plaintiff’s penis stated a sexual harassment claim under the city, but not the state, HRL. Isolated statements made outside the statute of limitations were not subject to the continuing violation doctrine.

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S CAUSES OF ACTION FOR CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE AND HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court determined plaintiff’s causes of action for constructive discharge and hostile work environment should have been dismissed. The court laid out the criteria for those causes of action:

“An employee is constructively discharged when her or his employer, rather than discharging the plaintiff directly, deliberately created working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position would have felt compelled to resign” … . Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that the plaintiff’s complaints were insufficient to show an intolerable work environment that would lead a reasonable person in that position to feel compelled to resign … . …

A hostile environment claim “involves repeated conduct,” not “[d]iscrete acts such as termination, failure to promote, denial of transfer, or refusal to hire” … . Here, the two discrete acts alleged by the plaintiff were insufficient to create a hostile work environment … . Blackman v Metropolitan Tr. Auth., 2022 NY Slip Op 03490, Second Dept 6-1-22

Practice Point: A “constructive discharge” employment-discrimination cause of action requires the deliberate creation of intolerable working conditions designed to force the plaintiff to quit (not demonstrated here). A “hostile work environment” employment-discrimination cause of action requires “repeated conduct” which is not demonstrated discrete acts such as termination, failure to promote, denial of transfer or refusal to hire.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S STATE AND CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; THE IDENTICAL CLAIMS UNDER FEDERAL LAW WERE DISMISSED IN FEDERAL COURT ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined plaintiff was collaterally estopped from asserting her NYC Human Rights Law causes of act after the dismissal of identical claims made under federal law in federal court. The First Department acknowledged the NYC Human Rights Law causes of action must be analyzed separately and independently from the federal and state human rights law causes of action, but held that collateral estoppel was proper under the facts:

In light of the particular express facts that the federal courts found were conclusively demonstrated by the record on the summary judgment motions before the district court; the nature of the allegations underlying plaintiff’s State and City Human Rights Law claims in this action and the manner in which plaintiff has litigated those claims; and the relevant collateral estoppel case law … , we conclude that, even affording the City Human Rights Law claims the liberal analysis to which they are entitled, plaintiff’s claims under both the State and City Human Rights Laws were properly dismissed under the doctrine of collateral estoppel … . …

In concluding that plaintiff failed to allege discriminatory intent, the motion court correctly held that collateral estoppel applied to facts identical to those necessarily found by the district court to be undisputed when it granted summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s federal employment discrimination claims ..  …

… [I]n dismissing the discrimination and hostile work environment claims against NYU, the motion court correctly relied on the district court’s finding that defendants Joseph Thometz and Eve Meltzer (the individual defendants) were not supervisors or managers, and thus that [defendant] NYU, as plaintiff’s employer, was not strictly liable for their conduct … . …

… [T]he federal courts found that NYU provided a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for plaintiff’s termination: plaintiff breached a protective order issued by the district court by sending unsolicited emails to a potential witness in the federal action. Moreover, the federal courts found that plaintiff failed to present evidence that NYU’s reason was pretextual. … . Russell v New York Univ., 2022 NY Slip Op 02765, First Dept 4-26-22

​Practice Point: Although NYC Human Rights Law violations must be analyzed separately and independently from federal and state law violations, here the dismissal of the federal claims in federal court required the dismissal of the state and city claims pursuant to the doctrine of collateral estoppel.

 

,

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).

 

,

PLAINTIFF SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR EMPLOYMENT DISMCRIMINATION BASED ON NATIONAL ORIGIN (YEMENI), HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT, AND RETALIATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff stated claims for (1) employment discrimination on the basis of national origin )Yemeni), (2) hostile work environment, and (3) retaliation:

[Plaintiff’s] assertion that he was denied a promotion to sergeant on at least two occasions adequately supports … his claim [for discrimination on the basis of national origin] …  . … [H]is allegations that a coworker made derogatory remarks about Yemenis in the presence of his supervisors, that such remarks were ignored or condoned, and that non-Yemeni campus peace officers, who were less qualified than he, were promoted to the sergeant position, supports the fourth element of his claim, i.e. that the adverse action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination … . …

Plaintiff has also stated a cause of action for hostile work environment, as his coworker’s multiple derogatory remarks about Yemenis, sometimes made in the presence of plaintiff’s supervisors, along with the allegedly unfounded write-ups, unfavorable assignments, and denial of a promotion, were sufficiently severe and pervasive to support that cause of action … . Plaintiff also alleges that defendants knew about the comments and failed to take appropriate action … .

Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged retaliation by showing that: (1) he engaged in protected activity in December 2016 when he filed a complaint stating that his supervisor was discriminating against him, (2) defendants were aware that he participated in such activity, (3) he was denied a promotion in February and May 2017, and (4) there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action … . Alshami v City Univ. of N.Y., 2022 NY Slip Op 02053, First Dept 3-24-22

Practice Point: This decision describes the allegations of employment discrimination (Human Rights Law) for (1) discrimination on the basis of national origin (Yemeni), (2) hostile work environment, and (3) retaliation which are sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.

 

,

PLAINTIFF RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER SHE WAS THE VICTIM OF GENDER DISCRIMINATION; UPON HER RETURN FROM MATERNITY LEAVE SHE WAS TOLD HER POSITION HAD BEEN ELIMINATED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s gender-discrimination action against defendant employer should not have been dismissed. Upon returning from maternity leave, plaintiff was informed her management-level position had been eliminated and replaced by a position for which she was not qualified. Defendant did offer plaintiff a job as a temporary social worker at the same salary:

“Discrimination on the basis of pregnancy is a form of gender discrimination” … . …

… [T]he defendant failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the position offered to the plaintiff involved a materially adverse change in the terms of her employment, since the social worker position did not involve any of the management responsibilities that the plaintiff had performed … . …

… [T[here were triable issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff’s supervisor, Segree, made remarks [re: her pregnancy] indicative of a discriminatory motive to terminate the plaintiff’s employment … . …

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, it also failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the proffered explanation for terminating the plaintiff’s employment was a pretext for discrimination … . Although McDonald averred that the plaintiff’s employment was terminated because she had no business education and no sales or marketing experience, he acknowledged that a business education was not required. Lefort v Kingsbrook Jewish Med. Ctr., 2022 NY Slip Op 01294, Second Dept 3-2-22

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S “INVOLUNTARY RESIGNATION,” HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT AND RETALIATION ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT; TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department over a two-justice dissent, determined plaintiff’s employment discrimination and retaliation action properly survived summary judgment. Among the issues presented by the allegations was whether she “involuntarily resigned” because of the intolerably hostile work environment. Plaintiff alleged she was subjected to sexual harassment and was retaliated against after she complained about her treatment:

In our view, the broader account by plaintiff of a hostile work environment, Hawkins’ [plaintiff’s supervisor] behavior in placing plaintiff, but not a similarly situated man, on a PIP [performance improvement plan], and what plaintiff described as a wholly inadequate response by Russo [human resources official] to her August 2017 complaint about the situation reflect questions of fact as to whether plaintiff was subjected to a work environment so hostile that her only alternative was resignation and whether that hostility arose from a discriminatory motive … . Defendants attempted to rebut the presumption of discrimination arising from those facts via the affidavit of Hawkins, who averred in conclusory fashion that the other employee he supervised was performing better than plaintiff at the time she was placed on a PIP and that the other employee was also placed on a PIP at some point. Hawkins, however, gave no detail as to how the other employee compared to plaintiff on the performance metrics, failed to deny that the other employee was also underperforming on those metrics in July 2017 and offered no explanation as to why he did not seek to place both on a PIP at that time. Long v Aerotek, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 00915, Third Dept 2-10-22

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were triable issues of fact in this employment discrimination case:

Plaintiff, an African American female, raises triable issues of fact whether her October 2017 termination (adverse employment action) was in retaliation for her verbal complaints (protected activity) concerning racist comments defendant Annie Liu allegedly uttered at work … . A question of fact exists as to whether plaintiff complained in July or August 2017. If plaintiff’s testimony is credited, the time frame between the discriminatory comments, plaintiff’s complaints, and her firing is evidence of a causal connection between the protected activity and her termination two months later … . Contrary to defendants’ argument, it is unclear from the record whether an intervening event occurred to dispel an inference of a causal relationship. Moreover, issues of fact also exist as to whether defendants’ proffered explanation for terminating plaintiff’s employment was pretextual … . Cancel v Global Fertility & Genetics, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 00811, First Dept 2-8-22

 

,

THE FACT THAT THE CITY BUILDING CODE DID NOT REQUIRE DISABLED-ACCESS TO THE THIRD FLOOR OF DEFENDANT RESTAURANT DID NOT CONFLICT WITH THE FACT THAT THE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW MAY REQUIRE SUCH ACCESS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff, a disabled wheelchair user, had standing to bring a discrimination action against defendant restaurant alleging the third floor of the restaurant was not accessible. The fact that the NYC Building Code did not require disabled-access to the third floor based on the square-footage did not conflict with the Human Rights Law which may require access:

The Building Code and disability discrimination laws serve different purposes and can easily be enforced and harmonized. The Building Code serves foremost to ensure safety in construction and maintenance of structures. The accessibility provision at issue simply states that no disabled access is required for building areas which measure less than 2,500 square feet. The provision does not prohibit building owners from providing such access — it simply provides that, for purposes of the Building Code, no such access is required.

The disability discrimination laws are designed, as pertinent here, to ensure that disabled persons have reasonable access to public accommodations. While the Building Code might not require disabled access under the circumstances present here, this does not mean that more may not be required under the State and City Human Rights Laws’ (HRLs) disability discrimination provisions. In this, there is no conflict. To the extent there is any tension between the Building Code’s provisions and the HRLs, such tension may be remedied by the rule of reasonableness which is an integral component of the HRLs’ requirement that disabled persons be reasonably accommodated (see Executive Law § 296[c][i]; Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-107[15][b]). Jones v McDonald’s Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 00814, First Dept 2-8-22

 

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