In Juillet v. The City of New York, No. 156256/2021, 2022 WL 17416915 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Dec. 02, 2022), the court, inter alia, held that plaintiff sufficiently alleged race discrimination under the New York City Human Rights Law.
From the decision:
For purposes of this motion, defendants do not dispute that plaintiff is a member of a protected class or was qualified to hold his position. However, defendants do dispute that plaintiff sufficiently alleges that he was subjected to adverse employment actions under circumstances that give rise to an inference of discrimination. Plaintiff alleges a number of instances of claimed discrimination that may or may not be outside of the statute of limitations. First, plaintiff alleges that Sergeant Fills would regularly state that “the NYPD [does] not want ‘these kinds of people’ on the job” (id. at ¶ 33), which plaintiff believed was in reference to his race and national origin. According to plaintiff, Sergeant Fills also told plaintiff that he placed plaintiff “in the middle of the intersection so [he] would get hit by a car.” Id. at ¶ 36. Plaintiff further alleges that Sergeant Maric would “joke that homeless people looked like plaintiff and point out homeless people and state, ‘there goes Juillet’.” Id. at ¶ 32.
As a result of this alleged racial animus, plaintiff claims that he suffered economically in the form of missed overtime pay, a denial of promotion to detective and transfers to specialized units, thereby sufficiently pleading the adverse employment action element. See Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d at 306 (holding, that “[a] materially adverse change might be indicated by a termination of employment, a demotion evidenced by a decrease in wage or salary, a less distinguished title, a material loss of benefits, significantly diminished material responsibilities, or other indices…unique to a particular situation”) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
In opposition, defendants argue that the alleged remarks made by Sergeant Fills and Sergeant Maric are facially neutral and do not give rise to an inference of discrimination. At this preliminary stage, before discovery has occurred, the Court disagrees. Here, “you people” could be interpreted as having a negative racial connotation. See Wooten v Reconstruction Home, Inc., 02 CV 01278, 2005 WL 1502149, at *11, 2005 US Dist LEXIS 44738, at *32 (ND NY 2005); see also Winston v Verizon Servs Corp., 633 F Supp 2d 42, 53 (SD NY 2009) (finding that a statement such as “you people cannot do anything right” could permit a reasonable jury to find discriminatory motivation).
The court concluded that while additional context is required, “such phrases combined with greater specificity as to the context of such phrases’ usage could provide a basis for a jury to draw an inference of discrimination.” [Cleaned up.]