AD2d 392 [1st Dept 1996], citing Peck v Sony Music Corp., 221 AD2d 157 [1st
Dept 1995]). The First Department thus focuses on the individual's connection to the
harassment rather than his status in the corporate employer (see Jordan v Cayuga
County, n.o.r., 2004 WL 437459 [NDNY 2004]). Whereas in the Second
Department it "is the employer's participation in the discriminatory practice which serves
as the predicate for the imposition of liability on others [co-employees] for aiding and
abetting" (Murphy v ERA United Realty, supra, 251 AD2d at 472),
courts in the First Department "have found a claim for aider and abetter discrimination
against a co-employee who is not an employer' under NYHRL § 296(1) only when
such employee actually or wilfully participated in the conduct giving rise to a
discrimination claim" (Perez v El Al Israel Airlines Ltd, 26 Misc 3d 1235(A), *3
[Sup Ct, NY Co, James, J, 2010]). The City's Human Rights Law also "provides that
individuals may be held liable for their acts of employment discrimination" (Arena v
Agip USA Inc., n.o.r., 2000 WL 264312, *3 [SDNY 2000], citations omitted).
A finding of either discrimination or retaliation by another party is essential to
establishing liability for aiding and abetting under both statutes (see DeWitt v
Lieberman, 48 F Supp 2d 280, 293 [SDNY 1999]). If plaintiff fails "to raise a triable
issue of material fact that she was either retaliated against or discriminated against ..., her
claims that defendants aided and abetted each other in any discrimination or retaliation
cannot survive" under Executive Law § 296(6)" (Forrest v Jewish Guild for the
Blind, supra, 3 NY3d at 314). Although plaintiff contends that Jeffrey aided and