Citing Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d 295, the Appellate Division held that Supreme Court properly dismissed Plaintiff's age discrimination claim brought pursuant to the New York State Human Rights Law [Executive Law §296] because Plaintiff "failed to allege an adverse employment action." The court noted that investigations into various alleged acts of misconduct by Plaintiff and Plaintiff's reassignments to other work locations "did not rise to the level of actionable adverse employment actions."
Further, the Appellate Division opined that nothing in Plaintiff's complaint indicated that his suspension and placement on modified duty were for any reason other than disciplinary actions taken after his arrest for domestic violence.
With respect to Plaintiff's discrimination claim under the New York City Human Rights Law [Administrative Code of City of NY §8-107], the court held that the conduct of which Plaintiff complained amounted to no more than "petty slights and trivial inconveniences" and an alleged stray remark by an employee of the Employer that Plaintiff was "old enough to retire" did not, without more, give rise to an inference of bias because of Plaintiff's age.
Finally, as Plaintiff failed to allege discriminatory animus, the Appellate Division concluded that his hostile work environment claims were properly dismissed by Supreme Court, as was his claim of retaliation, as his general complaints of mistreatment and harassment did not convey that Plaintiff had complained of unlawful discrimination.
Click HEREto access the text of the Appellate Division's decision.