Summary
holding that the plaintiff failed to state claims under the NYCHRL and NYRHL where the she was "living and working in Montreal, Canada, at the time of the alleged discriminatory conduct and she failed to allege that the conduct had any impact in either New York State or New York City"
Summary of this case from Syeed v. Bloomberg L.P.Opinion
13446 Index No. 160019/19 Case No. 2020-04336
03-25-2021
Parinaz PAKNIAT, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Gianni MOOR et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Godosky & Gentile, P.C., New York (David M. Godosky of counsel), for appellant. Blank Rome LLP, New York (Anthony A. Mingione of counsel), for respondents.
Godosky & Gentile, P.C., New York (David M. Godosky of counsel), for appellant.
Blank Rome LLP, New York (Anthony A. Mingione of counsel), for respondents.
Manzanet–Daniels, J.P., Kern, Moulton, Shulman, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (James Edward D'Auguste, J.), entered May 7, 2020, which granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The motion court correctly determined that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims of sexual harassment and retaliation under the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws (HRL) because plaintiff was living and working in Montreal, Canada, at the time of the alleged discriminatory conduct and she failed to allege that the conduct had any impact in either New York State or New York City (see Hoffman v. Parade Publs., 15 N.Y.3d 285, 907 N.Y.S.2d 145, 933 N.E.2d 744 [2010] ). The fact that the alleged discriminatory acts and unlawful decision to terminate plaintiff's employment occurred in New York is insufficient to plead impact in New York (see id. at 288, 292, 907 N.Y.S.2d 145, 933 N.E.2d 744 ; Hardwick v. Auriemma, 116 A.D.3d 465, 466–467, 983 N.Y.S.2d 509 [1st Dept. 2014], lv denied 23 N.Y.3d 908, 2014 WL 2936031 [2014] ).
Contrary to plaintiff's contentions, the legislature's minor revision of State HRL (Executive Law) § 300 has no bearing on Hoffman v. Parade Publs., 15 N.Y.3d 285, 907 N.Y.S.2d 145, 933 N.E.2d 744 (2010), supra . The Hoffman Court relied on sections 290 and 298–a in finding that the statute intended to protect the residents of this State or nonresidents who work in this State ( 15 N.Y.3d at 291–292, 907 N.Y.S.2d 145, 933 N.E.2d 744 ). In any event, the amendment does not extend the statute's protections to nonresidents who work for New York employers, notwithstanding the legislature's presumed knowledge of the Hoffman decision (see Matter of Knight–Ridder Broadcasting v. Greenberg, 70 N.Y.2d 151, 157, 518 N.Y.S.2d 595, 511 N.E.2d 1116 [1987] ).
In arguing that that the statutes should reach discriminatory conduct that occurs in New York even if the impact is felt by an out of state worker, plaintiff points to the increase in remote working arrangements since the Court of Appeals decided Hoffman. The Covid 19 pandemic has only expanded the diaspora of remote workers, many of them laboring in other states for New York firms. Certainly, the electronic tools that enable this new expanded workplace can be conduits for discriminatory conduct. Additionally, plaintiff is correct that the State and City Human Rights Laws are meant to deter discriminatory behavior by New York employers, as well as to compensate the employees impacted by that behavior. While these arguments have force, the clear directive of Hoffman bars this Court from expanding the jurisdictional breadth of either statute to encompass behavior such as that alleged in the complaint.
The forum selection clause in plaintiff's employment contract, which mandates that all claims arising out of the contract be litigated in New York, does not permit plaintiff to bring her City HRL and State HRL claims as a nonresident. To avail herself of these statutes, plaintiff must still satisfy the jurisdictional requirement that the impact of the discrimination was felt in New York City and State (see Hoffman, 15 N.Y.3d at 292, 907 N.Y.S.2d 145, 933 N.E.2d 744 ).
The motion court also correctly dismissed plaintiff's breach of contract claim, as she did not oppose defendant's motion with respect to this claim. Moreover, on appeal, plaintiff addresses this claim in a bare, conclusory footnote.
--------