Opinion
2022-00811 Index 152435/18
02-08-2022
Alexis Cancel, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Global Fertility and Genetics, Inc., et al., Defendants-Respondents. Appeal No. 15248 No. 2021-00058
Norman A. Olch, New York, for appellant. Kranjac Tripodi & Partners LLP, New York (Joseph Tripodi of counsel), for respondents.
Norman A. Olch, New York, for appellant.
Kranjac Tripodi & Partners LLP, New York (Joseph Tripodi of counsel), for respondents.
Before: Renwick, J.P., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Singh, Pitt, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alan C. Martin, J.), entered December 4, 2020, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's causes of action for retaliation under the New York State Human Rights Law (State HRL) and the New York City Humans Rights Law (City HRL), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the retaliation claims reinstated.
Plaintiff, an African American female, raises triable issues of fact whether her October 2017 termination (adverse employment action) was in retaliation for her verbal complaints (protected activity) concerning racist comments defendant Annie Liu allegedly uttered at work (see Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 N.Y.3d 295, 312-313 [2004] [State HRL prongs for retaliation]; Harrington v City of New York, 157 A.D.3d 582, 585 [1st Dept 2018] [City HRL test]). A question of fact exists as to whether plaintiff complained in July or August 2017. If plaintiff's testimony is credited, the time frame between the discriminatory comments, plaintiff's complaints, and her firing is evidence of a causal connection between the protected activity and her termination two months later (see Krebaum v Capital One., N.A., 138 A.D.3d 528, 528-529 [1st Dept 2016]). Contrary to defendants' argument, it is unclear from the record whether an intervening event occurred to dispel an inference of a causal relationship. Moreover, issues of fact also exist as to whether defendants' proffered explanation for terminating plaintiff's employment was pretextual (see id.).