NEW YORK (LN) — The First Department reversed a dismissal of a former Mizuho Securities trader’s gender discrimination claims Tuesday, ruling that the state Human Rights Law’s 2019 liberal-construction mandate requires it to be construed similarly to the City Human Rights Law for purposes of the continuing violation doctrine.
The panel held that the plaintiff, Kaitlin Farmer, adequately pleaded a hostile work environment claim despite the bulk of the alleged misconduct occurring outside the three-year statute of limitations, because the conduct formed a "single continuing pattern" that culminated in her termination.
Farmer, who worked as a trader at the brokerage firm, alleged that from June 2020 through early 2021, she was assigned a smaller percentage of the market and a lower risk limit than her male colleagues.
She further alleged that a supervisor made disparaging remarks about her appearance in late 2019, suggested she used her gender to gain favor with male colleagues, and told others her successes were attributable to cheating.
After Farmer complained to human resources, the supervisor announced he would "get [plaintiff] fired," according to the opinion.
On Feb. 10, 2021, Farmer requested options for moving to another role within the firm. The next day, she was locked out of her computer and told by her supervisor and human resources that they accepted her resignation.
Farmer denies leaving her employment voluntarily.
Supreme Court Justice Paul A. Goetz had granted Mizuho’s motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(5) and (7), finding the hostile work environment claims untimely.
The First Department rejected the argument that the continuing violation doctrine should be limited to discrete acts like hiring and firing.
"The City HRL focuses on unequal treatment regardless of whether or not the defendant has engaged in tangible conduct, such as hiring and firing," the court wrote, citing Williams v New York City Hous. Auth.
The court noted that the State Human Rights Law was amended in 2019 to require liberal construction for remedial purposes.
"Thus, the State HRL should likewise be construed not to distinguish between discrete acts of discrimination and other forms of unequal treatment for purposes of the continuing violation doctrine," the opinion stated.
The panel found that Farmer’s allegations of disparate treatment, if proven, gave rise to an inference of discrimination and established a causal connection to her termination.
The court also noted that Mizuho’s characterization of the termination as a voluntary departure raised an additional inference of discrimination.
The case is remanded for further proceedings.
Rick Ostrove of Leeds Brown Law represented Farmer. Edward M. Yennock of Epstein Becker & Green represented Mizuho.
The panel included Presiding Justice Renwick, and Justices Friedman, Kapnick, Pitt-Burke, and O’Neill Levy.