Dismissal of NYCHRL Race, National Origin Discrimination Claims Affirmed

In Persaud v. Walgreens Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 03555, 2018 WL 2224185 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept. May 16, 2018), the court summarized the legal standard applicable to claims under the NYC Human Rights Law:

The NYCHRL prohibits discrimination in employment based upon, inter alia, race and national origin (see Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § 8–107[1][a]; Macchio v. Michaels Elec. Supply Corp., 149 A.D.3d 716, 719, 51 N.Y.S.3d 134). “[A] defense motion for summary judgment in an action brought under the NYCHRL must be analyzed under both the familiar framework of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 [1973] ) and under the newer ‘mixed motive’ framework, which imposes a lesser burden on a plaintiff opposing such a motion” (Hamburg v. New York Univ. Sch. of Medicine, 155 A.D.3d 66, 72–73, 62 N.Y.S.3d 26; see Bennett v. Health Mgt. Sys., Inc., 92 A.D.3d 29, 936 N.Y.S.2d 112). “Summary judgment dismissing a claim under the NYCHRL should be granted only if no jury could find defendant liable under any of the evidentiary routes—McDonnell Douglas, mixed motive, direct evidence, or some combination thereof

Applying the law, the court concluded that “although the Supreme Court erred to the extent that it failed to analyze the defendants’ motion for summary judgment under the ‘mixed motive’ framework, summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ employment discrimination claims was nonetheless warranted[.]”

Share This: