Lee v. Riverbay Corporation, 751 F.Supp.3d 259

James Lee, a Korean American attorney, was employed as Associate General Counsel for Riverbay Corporation and Residential Management Group/Douglas Elliman Property Management from February 2018 to June 2022.
Lee alleges he was subjected to persistent racially discriminatory comments by supervisors, was denied salary increases, overburdened with work, excluded from meetings/emails, and ultimately terminated after filing an EEOC Charge.
After filing discrimination complaints internally and with the EEOC, Lee claims he faced retaliation, including additional workload and eventual termination shortly after receiving a right-to-sue letter.
Lee brought twelve claims under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) for discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, and related theories against both the corporate and individual defendants.
Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint and to strike certain paragraphs as privileged and irrelevant.
The court’s opinion rules on these motions, granting in part and denying in part, and provides Lee leave to attempt to replead dismissed claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Disparate Treatment Discrimination	Lee argues adverse actions (exclusion, pay, termination) were motivated by race/national origin bias.	Argued insufficient facts to establish adverse action or discriminatory motive; allegations are conclusory.	Most claims dismissed but race-related comments actionable under NYCHRL/post-2019 NYSHRL.
Retaliation	Lee argues negative acts (workload, pay, exclusion, termination) followed protected complaints/EEOC filing.	Asserted alleged actions were not adverse or causally linked to protected activity; no sufficient allegations.	Some retaliation claims survive (re denied raises, workload, termination); others dismissed.
Hostile Work Environment	Lee claims workplace was permeated by unchecked racial harassment/insults, especially from Mitchell.	Defendants argue only isolated jokes, not sufficiently severe/pervasive, and not all comments are class-based.	Hostile work environment claims survive under Title VII, NYSHRL (post-2019), NYCHRL.
Individual Liability/Aiding & Abetting	Lee asserts individuals either directly discriminated or failed to stop retaliation or discrimination.	Defendants argue no direct liability under NYSHRL; insufficient knowledge or participation alleged.	Most NYSHRL direct/retaliation claims dismissed; NYCHRL & aiding/abetting survive in part.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (establishes plausibility standard for pleadings)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (heightened pleading requirement under Rule 8)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination)
Littlejohn v. City of New York, 795 F.3d 297 (2d Cir. 2015) (sets discrimination/retaliation pleading standards)
Vega v. Hempstead Union Free Sch. Dist., 801 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2015) (retaliation/adverse action standards)
Patterson v. Cnty. of Oneida, 375 F.3d 206 (2d Cir. 2004) (individual liability under § 1981)
Feingold v. New York, 366 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2004) (aiding/abetting standard under NYSHRL/NYCHRL)
Alfano v. Costello, 294 F.3d 365 (2d Cir. 2002) (hostile work environment analysis under Title VII)
Mihalik v. Credit Agricole Cheuvreux N. Am., Inc., 715 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2013) (interpretation of broad NYCHRL standard)
Doe v. Bloomberg L.P., 36 N.Y.3d 450 (N.Y. 2021) (NYSHRL/NYCHRL individual/employer liability)