In Thompson v. Americare, Inc., No. 503679/2019, 2021 WL 4654619 (N.Y. Sup Ct, Kings County Sep. 23, 2021), the court, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s retaliation claim asserted under the New York City Human Rights Law.
From the decision:
Plaintiff’s disclosure to Martinez of her pregnancy is a protected activity under the NYCHRL. Similarly, plaintiff’s alleged disclosure to Martinez that Flores touched her impermissibly is a protected activity under the NYCHRL.
While the defendants’ evidentiary proof demonstrated, prima facie, that plaintiffs placement on the PIP was motivated by legitimate concerns, the submissions raised triable issues of fact as to whether Flores’ conduct and motivation in terminating plaintiff was pretexual, or at least motivated, in part, by a retaliatory motive (see La Marca-Pagano v Dr. Steven Phillips, P.C., 129 AD3d 918, 920). While Americare had permissible grounds for discharging plaintiff, it has not been established the defendant wasn’t acting at least in part by an impermissible motive (NYC Admin Code, § 8-107(7); Ananiadis v. Mediterranean Gyros Products, Inc., 151 A.D.3d 915). Defendants failed to make prima facie showing that there is no evidentiary route that could allow a jury to believe that discrimination played a role in their challenged actions.