employment practices of plaintiff's employer" (¶ 60). To make out a retaliation
claim under the City law (§ 8-107[7]), "the complaint must allege that: (1)
[plaintiff] participated in a protected activity known to defendants; (2) defendants took
an action that disadvantaged h[er]; and (3) a causal connection exists between the
protected activity and the adverse action" (Fletcher v. Dakota, supra, at
51, citations omitted). This test is substantially different than the one applicable to the
corresponding state law because retaliatory conduct under the City law need not rise to
the level of termination or even a materially adverse change to the terms and conditions
of plaintiff's employment (see Williams v NYCHA, supra, 61 AD3d at
70-71). Nonetheless, even under this minimal standard and construing § 8-107(7)
broadly in favor of plaintiff (see Albunio v City of New York, supra, 16
NY3d 472), the court finds that telling a bookkeeper to do accounting work cannot be
said to be an action which "disadvantaged" plaintiff.
Aiding and
Abetting
All of plaintiff's claims against all of the
defendants are based solely on the alleged actions of David (see complaint, ¶¶
25-38). The complaint's only specific allegation against Jeffrey is that he "aided and
abetted ... [David] ... in committing the unlawful acts referenced [t]herein" (id.,
¶ 42). How he did so is not specified in either the complaint or plaintiff's
deposition testimony, which also fail to specify how any of the other defendants aided
and [*14]abetted David's discriminatory conduct.
Plaintiff has asserted claims for aiding and abetting under both state and city laws.
The third cause of action alleges that "[e]ach of the defendants" violated "Executive Law