Arazi v. Cohen Brothers Realty Corporation

Background

Corinne Arazi, Roseann Hylemon, and Evelyn Julia sued their former employer, Cohen Brothers Realty Corporation. They alleged that employees and supervisors subjected them to unwanted sexual comments, touching, sexual jokes, yelling, humiliation, and other unequal treatment. They also alleged that Cohen Brothers mishandled workplace precautions during the COVID-19 pandemic, refused requested work-from-home arrangements, furloughed them without pay, and later terminated them.

The plaintiffs asserted claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The wage and overtime claims were not part of Cohen Brothers’ motion to dismiss. The motion challenged claims involving gender-based hostile work environment, whistleblowing, disability discrimination and failure to accommodate, and retaliation.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the standard for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. At that stage, it treated the complaint’s factual allegations as true and drew reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs’ favor, while disregarding unsupported legal conclusions.

The court held that Hylemon plausibly alleged that multiple sclerosis was a disability under the New York State and New York City human-rights laws and that she requested to work from home because the condition increased her risk during the pandemic. Arazi also plausibly alleged a failure-to-accommodate claim based on her low white blood cell count.

The court distinguished between Arazi’s two disability-association theories. It held that the New York City Human Rights Law permits a claim based on discrimination connected to an associated person’s disability. Arazi therefore plausibly alleged such a claim based on her partner’s alleged COVID-19-related impairment, including breathing difficulties and the need for an oxygen machine. But the court held that the New York State Human Rights Law does not recognize disability-association discrimination because its text addresses discrimination based on the plaintiff’s own disability. The court therefore rejected Arazi’s associational-disability claim under the state law.

The court also held that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged whistleblowing under New York Labor Law § 740. They alleged that they told supervisors and human-resources personnel that Cohen Brothers was keeping its offices open, encouraging employees to come in, and treating nonessential employees as essential despite New York executive orders issued during the pandemic. The court found those allegations sufficient to plead a possible violation of law and a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety. It also found that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged retaliatory actions, including furloughs and termination.

For the New York City Human Rights Law hostile-work-environment claims brought by Hylemon and Arazi, the court held that the allegations of sexual jokes, sexual conduct directed at or occurring in front of the plaintiffs, and harsher treatment of female employees were sufficient at the pleading stage. The court also held that Hylemon’s claim was not barred by the statute of limitations because the alleged conduct could constitute a continuing course of conduct. The plaintiffs had withdrawn their hostile-work-environment claims under the New York State Human Rights Law.

The court further held that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged retaliation under the New York State and New York City human-rights laws. Filing this lawsuit was protected activity, Cohen Brothers knew about it, termination could deter a person from complaining, and the timing supported an inference of a causal connection. Finally, the court held that the plaintiffs adequately pleaded retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law because termination is an adverse employment action and the complaint alleged that they were terminated while still seeking answers about returning to work.

Disposition

The court denied Cohen Brothers’ motion to dismiss except for Arazi’s claim for associational disability under the New York State Human Rights Law. The court denied leave to amend that claim because it concluded that amendment would be futile. The remaining challenged claims were not dismissed at this stage, and the court directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion.