Opinion
7838 Index 150911/13
12-11-2018
Michael COOK, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. EMBLEMHEALTH SERVICES COMPANY, LLC, et al., Defendants–Appellants, Laura Albert, Defendant.
Cozen O'Connor, New York (Michael C. Schmidt of counsel), for appellants. Ziegler, Ziegler & Associates LLP, New York (Christopher Brennan of counsel), for respondent.
Cozen O'Connor, New York (Michael C. Schmidt of counsel), for appellants.
Ziegler, Ziegler & Associates LLP, New York (Christopher Brennan of counsel), for respondent.
Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Mazzarelli, Oing, Moulton, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered on or about March 20, 2018, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action for retaliation under the New York City Human Rights Law as against EmblemHealth Services Company, LLC, and Benjamin Nodar, unanimously affirmed.
The temporal proximity between plaintiff's complaints to his employer that he was subjected to racial stereotyping and discrimination and the termination of his employment in close succession to his last complaint is sufficient to raise an inference of a causal connection between plaintiff's protected activity and the disadvantaging employment action taken against him (see Harrington v. City of New York, 157 A.D.3d 582, 585–586, 70 N.Y.S.3d 177 [1st Dept. 2018] ; Krebaum v. Capital One, N.A., 138 A.D.3d 528, 528–529, 29 N.Y.S.3d 351 [1st Dept. 2016] ; Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § 8–107[7] ). Viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the record provides additional support for an inference of retaliation in the fact that defendants never investigated, or even acknowledged, plaintiff's final complaint and the fact that plaintiff was terminated for conduct comparable to his supervisee's conduct, for which the supervisee only received a mild reprimand.