Vargas v. City of New York
2025 NY Slip Op 32298(U)
N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.2025Background
- Plaintiff Diana Vargas, a Hispanic woman, was employed in several progressively responsible roles within the NYPD laboratory, ultimately achieving the rank of Assistant Director—the first Hispanic person to do so.
- Vargas alleges she was subjected to discriminatory and retaliatory actions by her supervisors, Scott O’Neill and Brian McGee, including being excluded from important meetings, denied credit for her work, and demoted after making discrimination complaints.
- She claims she was further isolated and lost significant salary and responsibilities following her protected activity (filing discrimination and retaliation complaints on behalf of herself and others).
- The City of New York and the named supervisors moved to dismiss her complaint for failure to state a claim under CPLR § 3211(a)(7), contending her allegations were conclusory and unsupported by an inference of discrimination.
- The court’s decision addresses only whether Vargas’s pleading is sufficient to state causes of action for discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discrimination Claims (SHRL/CHRL) | Vargas sufficiently pleaded being treated less well due to race/gender; alleges demotion, isolation, loss of credit and salary, and exclusion from meetings. | Defendants argue allegations are conclusory and unsupported by discriminatory inference; others outside her class were not treated differently. | Denied: Claims sufficiently pleaded to survive dismissal. |
| Hostile Work Environment | Persistent and pervasive adverse actions (exclusion, demotion, isolation) constitute a hostile work environment linked to protected characteristics. | Defendants contend alleged conduct is merely trivial slights/unconnected to race or gender; does not meet legal threshold. | Denied: Factual allegations support hostile work environment claim. |
| Retaliation | Retaliation occurred after protected activity (filing discrimination reports on behalf of self and others), including demotion and isolation. | Defendants claim challenged actions predate protected activity or are mere continuation of prior conduct. | Denied: Allegations show escalation and temporal proximity; sufficient at pleading stage. |
| Failure to Promote | Denied promotion opportunity as part of discriminatory conduct. | Defendants argue disciplinary charges arose after the promotion at issue; claim unsupported. | Granted as to this claim: Insufficient factual support; dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d 295 (N.Y. 2004) (sets standard for hostile work environment under SHRL)
- James v. City of New York, 144 AD3d 466 (1st Dept. 2016) (demotion is an adverse employment action)
- Harrington v. City of New York, 157 AD3d 582 (1st Dept. 2018) (elements for retaliation claims under SHRL/CHRL)
- Walker v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 220 AD3d 554 (1st Dept. 2023) (disparate treatment, exclusion sufficient for discrimination/hostile work environment claims)
- Acala v. Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky & Popeo, P.C., 222 AD3d 706 (1st Dept. 2023) (pleading standards for discrimination under SHRL and CHRL)
- Seemungal v. N.Y. State Dept. of Fin. Servs., 222 AD3d 467 (1st Dept. 2023) (liberal pleading construction at motion to dismiss stage)
- IntegrateNYC, Inc. v. State, 228 AD3d 152 (1st Dept. 2024) (all favorable inferences to plaintiff at pleading stage)