Sexual Harassment Etc. Claims Against Mixmaster Survive Motion to Dismiss Based on Geographical Reach of NYC Human Rights Law

In Self v. Mixmaster, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 31938(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Kings Cty. Oct. 19, 2015), the court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s NYC Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) (sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and retaliation), intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims.

Defendants argued that plaintiff’s claims under the NYCHRL should be dismissed because that statute “applies only to employment acts taking place within the boundaries of New York City … and plaintiff’s complaint does not allege that any of the instances of discriminatory conduct occurred in New York City.”

The court disagreed:

Plaintiff opposes defendants’ motion to dismiss the 3rd and 4th causes of action on the basis that the complaint alleges that plaintiff worked in New York City [] and that she was subjected to unwelcome sexual comments while working in New York City [].  At this stage of the litigation, pre-answer and pre-discovery, the court cannot say that plaintiff can make out no claims for discrimination and retaliation that occurred in New York City. The complaint states otherwise and the court is required to accept the allegations in the complaint as true. Accordingly, a determination of whether the plaintiff can prove her complaints of discrimination and retaliation pursuant to the NYC Human Rights Law must await the completion of discovery and, perhaps, a trial on the merits.

The court also denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, finding that “the allegations in [plaintiff’s] complaint assert a pattern of behavior that put plaintiff in embarrassing, humiliating and demeaning positions.”

Here is plaintiff’s complaint.

Share This: