“In order to succeed on a NYCHRL hostile work environment claim, a plaintiff must show that []he was treated less well than other employees on the basis of a protected characteristic.” Jones-Cruz v. Rivera, No. 19 Civ. 6910, 2022 WL 20437017, at *17 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2022). The NYCHRL offers the most employee-friendly standard.
Second, the inconsistencies about the enterprise in Plaintiffs' submissions cannot be ignored, as they are “flatly contradictory.” Jones-Cruz v. Rivera, No. 19 Civ. 6910, 2022 WL 20437017, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2022). For example, as the Credit Suisse Defendants point out, Plaintiffs allege that “[d]efendants ... are employed by or associated with the enterprise,” RCS, at 24, but also claim that “The Credit Suisse entities, Credit Suisse Individual Defendants, KPMG LLP and the KPMG RICO Defendants are each associated with the enterprise but not employed by it. The association in fact enterprise has no employees.
To state a prima facie claim for sex discrimination under Title VII, a plaintiff must allege: “(1) that she is a member of a protected class; (2) that she was qualified for employment in the position; (3) that she suffered an adverse employment action; and, in addition, has (4) some minimal evidence suggesting an inference that the employer acted with discriminatory motivation.” Littlejohn v. City of New York, 795 F.3d 297, 307 (2d Cir. 2015). Under the NYCHRL, a prima facie case requires only a showing of “differential treatment of any degree based on a discriminatory motive[,]” Jones-Cruz v. Rivera, No. 19 Civ. 6910 (PGG), 2022 WL 20437017, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2022), and the “plaintiff need only demonstrate that discrimination was one of the motivating factors for the defendant's conduct, not that discrimination was the ‘but-for' cause.” Id. In 2019, the NYSHRL was amended such that “the standard for NYSHRL discrimination claims is closer to the standard of the NYCHRL.” Id.