Luo v. AIK Renovation Inc.

Background

Shixuan Luo alleged that he worked as a project manager for AIK Renovation Inc. from May 30, 2022, until July 9, 2022, and that Michael Renosis was his direct supervisor. Luo alleged that he was treated poorly because he was an Asian man of Chinese national origin. Among other allegations, he said that requests for supplies and safety equipment were ignored or delayed, he was excluded from certain construction meetings, and he was prevented from contacting people involved with his worksite.

Luo also alleged that Renosis made an offensive comment about Chinese people when a Chinese worker sought an interview, that AIK leaders made racist jokes about other workers, and that he heard racial slurs, including a slur referring to him. He alleged that AIK’s owner, Steve Nejasmic, later told him he would be replaced by a white, non-Chinese person and then fired him. Luo further alleged that AIK did not pay his salary for the last complete week of his employment.

The amended complaint asserted claims for discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. It also asserted wage claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York State Labor Law, and the Wage Theft Protection Act. Defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim, seeking dismissal of counts one through six but not the wage claim in count seven.

Discrimination Claims

The court held that Luo alleged enough facts to support discrimination claims under federal, state, and city law at the pleading stage. The parties did not dispute that Luo alleged membership in a protected group, qualification for his position, and an adverse employment action. The court found that the alleged racist comments, the alleged replacement by a white person of non-Chinese nationality, the leaders’ alleged derogatory comments about minority groups, and the alleged failure to consider Luo’s defenses together supported at least a minimal inference that his termination was based on race and national origin.

Hostile-Work-Environment Claims

The court also held that Luo stated hostile-work-environment claims. For the federal and New York State claims, the court considered the alleged number, frequency, and severity of the remarks, as well as the fact that they allegedly occurred over a period of weeks. The court concluded that the allegations about the comment concerning a Chinese job applicant, racist jokes about terminated workers, the alleged anti-Chinese slur directed at Luo, and several uses of a racial slur referring to Black people were sufficient at this stage.

The court stated that the New York City Human Rights Law applies a more lenient standard, under which a plaintiff generally must show that he was treated less well because of a protected characteristic. Because the court found that Luo stated claims under federal and state law, it concluded that he also stated a hostile-work-environment claim under the city law.

Retaliation Claims

The court dismissed Luo’s retaliation claims under federal, state, and city law. It explained that complaints about disorganized deliveries, safety equipment, and safety practices did not allege that Luo opposed racial or national-origin discrimination. Therefore, those complaints were not protected activity under the discrimination laws. Luo’s complaint to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission also could not support his retaliation claims because he filed it after Defendants had terminated him, and he did not allege that Defendants took adverse action against him afterward.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The retaliation claims were dismissed, while the discrimination and hostile-work-environment claims were not dismissed. The order did not decide the wage claims because Defendants did not move to dismiss that cause of action. The clerk was directed to close the motion docket entry.