In Kao v. Onyx Renewable Partners L.P., No. 654411/2021, 2022 WL 705640 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Mar. 08, 2022), the court dismissed plaintiff’s gender discrimination claims under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.
From the decision:
The particular discrimination allegations against defendant is the one-time “Happy International Woman’s Day” wish that defendant had made on a videoconference call on March 1, 2021. The next phrase is defendant’s announcement in the same conference call that his company, SDCL, will be hiring a woman for its New York City office and that plaintiff would like her because they have a lot in common. This, plaintiff alleges, was declared sarcastically. Plaintiff adds that other than their gender, she and SDCL’s prospective employee had nothing in common. Plaintiff also complains that defendant “never reached out to [her] as CEO of Onyx, directly” “in the three months of due diligence or two months pre-closing,” except to request, by email, that she contact a colleague about a project opportunity.
Whether ORP GP’s rejection of her resignation for good reason is an adverse employment action does not speak to defendant’s involvement in her discrimination claim. And it is unclear how defendant’s conduct, as set forth in the complaint, constitutes an adverse employment act or unlawful discrimination based on gender.
The phrase “Happy International Woman’s Day” is innocuous, just as the phrase “Happy Mother’s Day” is innocuous even if it was said to a group that consisted of one woman. That defendant stated that his own company was hiring a woman for its New York office and that plaintiff would like her because they are similar may have set plaintiff apart, but this statement is also innocuous, even if it was said sarcastically. Indeed, nowhere in the complaint does plaintiff allege that the singular comments were offensive or showed animosity based on gender.
[Cleaned up.]
The court also considered, and rejected, plaintiff’s remaining arguments – noting , for example, that her “assertion on the company’s preference for male employees leaves unexplained her role as the company’s president and CEO.”