by Local Law 85, either continued to apply established precedent (still good law with
respect to federal and state statutes), perhaps tweaked a little (see, e.g., Santos
v Brookdale Hospital Medical Center, n.o.r., 29 Misc 3d 1207(A) [Sup Ct, Kings
Co, 2010] [applied state test, but held harassment need not be "severe and pervasive"]),
or devised their own creative interpretation (see, e.g., Artis v Random House, Inc.,
34 Misc 3d 858 [Sup Ct, NY Co, Billings, J, 2011]).
A year ago, in Bennett v Health Management Systems, Inc. (92 AD3d 29
[1st Dept 2011, Acosta, J], lv den 18 NY3d 811 [2012]), the First Department finally
articulated the standards applicable to summary judgment motions to dismiss sex
discrimination and harassment claims under the City's Human Rights Law. The court
must hold the plaintiff to a much lower standard than the minimal standard usually
applied in similar discrimination cases under federal and state law (id. at 35-36,
citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v Green, 411 US 792 [1973]). All aspects of
the City's Human Rights Law "must be interpreted so as to accomplish the uniquely
broad and remedial purposes of the law" (Bennett, supra, at 34-35, citing Admin
Code § 8-130). The court is to consider plaintiff's ability to make out a prima
facie case only in exceptional situations. "Instead, it should turn to the question of
whether the defendant has sufficiently met its burden, as the moving party"
(Bennett at 38-40, 45).
The Employment
Relationship
The identity of
plaintiff's employer is a central yet nebulous issue in the litigation at bar.
Plaintiff's claims against all the defendants other than David are premised on the
contention that David was plaintiff's "boss" or "supervisor." At her deposition plaintiff