In Sanderson v. Leg Apparel et al, 2020 WL 3100256 (SDNY June 11, 2020), the court, inter alia, held that plaintiff sufficiently alleged his race-based discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
From the decision:
Sanderson has met this pleading burden. Sanderson has alleged that he is Black and that he was qualified for his position. He has also alleged that he was assigned a disproportionately heavy workload relative to his white colleagues, which is an adverse employment action. … Granted, “allegations of excessive work” do not necessarily qualify as an “adverse employment action[.]” … But Sanderson alleges that his workload was heavier than similarly situated white colleagues. Feingold held that allegations of a disproportionate workload can qualify as an adverse employment action. … And because Sanderson alleges that his white colleagues were assigned less work, Sanderson has met his minimal burden to allege facts suggesting an inference of discriminatory motivation.
The court rejected defendants’ argument to the contrary, noting (inter alia) that the cases cited by them were decided at summary judgment. The court found persuasive Feingold v. New York, 366 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2004), in which the Second Circuit held that an employee’s allegation that he was assigned a “disproportionately heavy workload” supported a plausible inference of discrimination. Thus, plaintiff’s allegations that he was assigned more work than a white colleague with similar job responsibilities were adequate to survive defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims asserted under federal law (Title VII and 42 U.S.C. 1981).
Having found that plaintiff sufficiently alleged his discrimination claims under federal law, it held that plaintiff sufficiently alleged his claim under the New York State Human Rights Law (which employs the same standard as federal law) and the New York City Human Rights Law (which is to be interpreted more broadly than federal and state law such that thos laws “serve as a floor below which NYCHRL claims cannot fall”).