GINA WILLIAMS, Appellant, v NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHOR-
ITY et al., Respondents.
First Department, January 27, 2009
SUMMARY
A PPEAL from an order of the Supreme Court, New York
County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered August 14, 2007. The
order granted defendants summary judgment dismissing the
amended complaint.
Williams v New York City Hous. Auth., 2007 NY Slip Op
34401(U), affirmed.
HEADNOTES
Civil Rights — New York City Human Rights Law — Unlawful
Retaliation — Effect of Local Civil Rights Restoration Act of
2005
1. Plaintiff, an employee of defendant New York City Housing Authority,
failed to state a claim for unlawful retaliation under the State’s Human Rights
Law (Executive Law § 296 [7]) based upon her one-time ‘‘out-of title’’ assign-
ment to strip and wax the boiler room office floor after she made complaints
about discriminatory treatment, and also failed to state a retaliation claim
under the City’s Human Rights Law (HRL) (Administrative Code of City of
NY § 8-107 [7]), even though the HRL, as amended by the Local Civil Rights
Restoration Act of 2005 (see Administrative Code § 8-130) is required to be
liberally construed independently from its state and federal counterparts in
order to accomplish the statute’s ‘‘uniquely broad and remedial’’ purposes.
Even under a broader construction of the HRL’s antiretaliation provision,
which proscribes workplace retaliation ‘‘in any manner,’’ plaintiff’s retaliation
claim failed. Plaintiff failed to link her complained-of assignment to a retalia-
tory motivation, and otherwise failed to demonstrate that her assignment to
do field work and respond to tenant complaints and defendant’s failure to
grant her ‘‘excused time’’ to deal with a parking ticket were attributable to
retaliation.