Desiderio v. Hudson Technologies, Inc.

Background

Staryl Desiderio sued Hudson Technologies, Inc. and Brian Coleman, asserting, among other claims, gender discrimination under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). The court previously granted the defendants’ summary-judgment motion on some claims but denied it as to the gender-discrimination claims at issue here. The defendants then moved for reconsideration.

Desiderio alleged that Coleman harshly reprimanded her after she responded to a workplace complaint about sexually inappropriate comments. Coleman required her to complete additional training and revise her performance goals, and he sent an email to Hudson’s leadership criticizing the handling of the matter. Desiderio later took medical leave. Coleman stated that she had effectively resigned by failing to return after her leave and refused her request to exercise stock options.

Title VII claim

The court denied reconsideration of the Title VII discriminatory-termination claim. It rejected the defendants’ argument that a recent Second Circuit decision required a different result. Applying the burden-shifting framework used in employment-discrimination cases, the court held that Desiderio had offered enough evidence for the claim to survive summary judgment.

The court identified evidence from which a jury could find that the defendants’ stated reason—that Desiderio voluntarily resigned—was false. Hudson had not told Desiderio when her leave would end, and the parties were still discussing the terms of her departure. The court held that this evidence, combined with Desiderio’s evidence supporting an initial inference of discrimination, could allow a factfinder to conclude that gender was a determining factor in the termination.

NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims

The court reconsidered its earlier treatment of the New York State and New York City claims. It ruled that, under the Supreme Court’s decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the discipline imposed during and after the Long Island City meeting could qualify as an adverse employment action even without a materially significant change in employment terms. The court found that a jury could view the additional tasks, possible damage to Desiderio’s workplace reputation, and the effect of the confrontation as leaving her worse off.

However, the court separately held that Desiderio had not shown that the discipline occurred under circumstances suggesting gender discrimination. Her assertions that male employees were treated more favorably were not supported by a specific comparator or specific evidence of comparable conduct. Because the discipline did not support an inference of discrimination, the court treated the alleged termination as the only remaining discriminatory action for the New York claims.

Desiderio was a Florida resident and had worked remotely during the pandemic. The court held that the alleged termination’s effects were felt in Florida, not New York, and that allowing the NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims to proceed on the termination alone would be clear error. It therefore granted reconsideration as to those causes of action.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court granted Desiderio’s request for leave to amend. It did not decide whether a nonresident terminated employee can establish the required New York impact by alleging that, if employment had continued, the employee would have been expected to work in person at the employer’s New York office. The court allowed Desiderio to add that type of allegation.

The order states that the defendants’ motion for reconsideration was granted in part and denied in part: reconsideration was granted with respect to the NYSHRL and NYCHRL causes of action and denied with respect to the Title VII discriminatory-termination claim. Desiderio’s request for leave to amend was granted, and any amended complaint was due by May 23, 2025.