"The standards relating to burden and order of proof in employment discrimination
cases brought under the Human Rights Law are the same as those established by the
United States Supreme Court ... for cases brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964" (Sogg v American Airlines, Inc., 193 AD2d 153, 155-156
[1st Dept 1993], app dism 83 NY2d 846 [1994], lv den 83 NY2d 754 [1994], rearg den
83 NY2d 954 [1994]). "Thus, because both the Human Rights Law and title VII address
the same type of discrimination, afford victims similar forms of redress, are textually
similar and ultimately employ the same standards of recovery, federal case law in this
area also proves helpful" (Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, supra, 3
NY3d at 305, n 3, citations omitted).
The "level of proof a plaintiff is required to present in order to establish a prima
facie case of discrimination is low" (Hill v Douglas Elliman-Gibbons & Ives,
n.o.r., 1999 WL 34855568 [Sup Ct, NY Co, EJ Goodman, J, 1999], affd 269 AD2d 117
[1st Dept 2000], citing de la Cruz v NYC Human Resources Administration, Dept. of
Social Services, 82 F3d 16, 20 [2d Cir 1996], mot den 519 US 805 [1996]).
"However, the general rule holds and a plaintiff may not defeat a motion for summary
judgment merely by relying upon purely conclusory allegations of discrimination, absent
any concrete particulars which, if believed, would show discrimination'" (Garside v
Hillside Family of Agencies, n.o.r., 2011 WL 32582, *10 [WDNY 2011]).
III. New York City Human Rights Law
Defendants' burden with respect to plaintiff's claims under the City's Human Rights
Law is more onerous. "The Administrative Code's legislative history clearly contemplates
that the [*4]New York City Human Rights Law be