The Second Circuit holds that this scenario may state a claim where one of the candidates is deemed to be of "Hispanic" ethnicity.Village of Freeport v. Barrella, No. 14-2270 (2d Cir. Feb. 16, 2016): The plaintiff Christopher Barrella persuaded a jury to award him $150,000 for lost back pay, $1,000,000 for lost future pay, and (against one defendant) $200,000 in punitive damages for denial of promotion to village chief of police. The trial proceeded solely under a theory of race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VII, and the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), N.Y. Exec. Law § 290. The district court dismissed the parallel claim of national-origin discrimination.

New York has two sets of laws which cover this area. The New York State Human Rights Law (N.Y. Exec. Law § 290 et seq.) prohibits employment discrimination against any employee who is a victim of domestic violence. The New York City Human Rights Law (N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-101 et seq.) contains a similar, and more robust protection, which prohibits discrimination against a victim of domestic violence and also requires that an employer “accommodate” an employee in that situation.

Plaintiffs further contend that although they had complained about these discriminatory practices both to Human Resources and to the person in charge of running the Market Investigator unit in New York City, these complaints “went virtually unanswered” and “no real investigation was ever conducted” nor was any remedial action ever taken. As a result of being “forced to work in such an incredibly discriminatory environment,” two of the plaintiffs allege that they were constructively discharged, while another alleges that she was retaliated against when CVS terminated her after receiving her complaint. Consequently, plaintiffs filed suit and brought individual and class claims against CVS for unlawful discriminatory and retaliatory employment practices under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981; the New York State Human Rights Law, New York Executive Law §§ 290 et esq; and the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Administrative Code §§ 8-107 et esq. In response, a spokesperson for CVS stated that she was shocked by these allegations and commented that CVS does not tolerate discriminatory policies or practices.

Plaintiffs further contend that although they had complained about these discriminatory practices both to Human Resources and to the person in charge of running the Market Investigator unit in New York City, these complaints “went virtually unanswered” and “no real investigation was ever conducted” nor was any remedial action ever taken. As a result of being “forced to work in such an incredibly discriminatory environment,” two of the plaintiffs allege that they were constructively discharged, while another alleges that she was retaliated against when CVS terminated her after receiving her complaint.Consequently, plaintiffs filed suit and brought individual and class claims against CVS for unlawful discriminatory and retaliatory employment practices under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981; the New York State Human Rights Law, New York Executive Law §§ 290 et esq; and the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Administrative Code §§ 8-107 et esq.In response, a spokesperson for CVS stated that she was shocked by these allegations and commented that CVS does not tolerate discriminatory policies or practices. “CVS Health has firm nondiscrimination policies that it rigorously enforces.