McDonnell Douglas framework in New York

2018We concluded [*6]that: "[o]n a motion for summary judgment, defendant bears the burden of showing that, based on the evidence before the court and drawing all reasonable inferences in plaintiff's favor, no jury could find defendant liable under any of the evidentiary routes: under the McDonnell Douglas test, or as one of a number of mixed motives, by direct or circumstantial evidence" ( Bennett , 92 AD3d at 41 ). [FN8] Although we noted that a central purpose of the City Human Rights Law "was to resist efforts to ratchet down or devalue the means by which those intended to be protected by the

2018We concluded [*6]that: "[o]n a motion for summary judgment, defendant bears the burden of showing that, based on the evidence before the court and drawing all reasonable inferences in plaintiff's favor, no jury could find defendant liable under any of the evidentiary routes: under the McDonnell Douglas test, or as one of a number of mixed motives, by direct or circumstantial evidence" ( Bennett , 92 AD3d at 41 ). [FN8] Although we noted that a central purpose of the City Human Rights Law "was to resist efforts to ratchet down or devalue the means by which those intended to be protected by the

2024Finally, the burden shifts back to the plaintiffto prove that the reasons given by the defendant "were merely a pretext for discrimination by demonstrating both that the stated reasons were false and that discrimination was the real reason" (Forrest, 3 NY3d at 305 ). 2 As will be explained infra, to be awarded summary judgment under the City Human Rights Law, the defendant bears the burden of showing that no jury could reasonably find the defendant liable under the McDonnell Douglas standard or the newer "mixed-motive" framework (Bennett v Health Mgmt.

2024Finally, the burden shifts back to the plaintiffto prove that the reasons given by the defendant "were merely a pretext for discrimination by demonstrating both that the stated reasons were false and that discrimination was the real reason" (Forrest, 3 NY3d at 305 ). 2 As will be explained infra, to be awarded summary judgment under the City Human Rights Law, the defendant bears the burden of showing that no jury could reasonably find the defendant liable under the McDonnell Douglas standard or the newer "mixed-motive" framework (Bennett v Health Mgmt.

2018In order to succeed on a motion for summary judgment dismissing City HRL employment discrimination claims of wrongful termination, failure to promote and disparate treatment, the moving defendant must establish that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, shows that no reasonable jury could find the defendant liable "under any of the evidentiary routes," including the McDonnell Douglas framework ( see McDonnell Douglas Corp . v Green , 411 US 792, 802 [1973]) and the "mixed motive" framework ( see Williams , 61 AD3d at 78 n 27), "by direct or circumstantial evidence"

2018In order to succeed on a motion for summary judgment dismissing City HRL employment discrimination claims of wrongful termination, failure to promote and disparate treatment, the moving defendant must establish that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, shows that no reasonable jury could find the defendant liable "under any of the evidentiary routes," including the McDonnell Douglas framework ( see McDonnell Douglas Corp . v Green , 411 US 792, 802 [1973]) and the "mixed motive" framework ( see Williams , 61 AD3d at 78 n 27), "by direct or circumstantial evidence"

2018Footnote 10: The Second Circuit and some sister circuits have similarly not applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework to hostile work environment claims under federal law ( see Reynolds v Barrett , 685 F3d 193, 202 [2d Cir 2012]; Moody v Atlantic City Bd. of Educ ., 870 F3d 206 , 213 n 11 [3d Cir 2017] ["Some of our sister circuits have concluded that the McDonnell Douglas framework does not apply in hostile work environment sexual harassment cases . . .

2018Footnote 10: The Second Circuit and some sister circuits have similarly not applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework to hostile work environment claims under federal law ( see Reynolds v Barrett , 685 F3d 193, 202 [2d Cir 2012]; Moody v Atlantic City Bd. of Educ ., 870 F3d 206 , 213 n 11 [3d Cir 2017] ["Some of our sister circuits have concluded that the McDonnell Douglas framework does not apply in hostile work environment sexual harassment cases . . .

2012In a close case, this Court should not substitute its judgment for that of a jury (cf. Albunio v City of New York, 16 NY3d 472 [2011] [upholding a jury verdict for a plaintiff in a case that is a “closer” call]; Vivenzio v City of Syracuse, 611 F3d 98, 106 [2d Cir 2010] [“It is not the province of the court itself to decide what inferences should be drawn . . . ; if there is any evidence in the record from any source from which a reasonable inference could be drawn in favor of the nonmoving party, summary judgment is improper”] [internal quotation marks omitted]; Carlton v Mystic Transp., Inc.

2012In a close case, this Court should not substitute its judgment for that of a jury (cf. Albunio v City of New York, 16 NY3d 472 [2011] [upholding a jury verdict for a plaintiff in a case that is a “closer” call]; Vivenzio v City of Syracuse, 611 F3d 98, 106 [2d Cir 2010] [“It is not the province of the court itself to decide what inferences should be drawn . . . ; if there is any evidence in the record from any source from which a reasonable inference could be drawn in favor of the nonmoving party, summary judgment is improper”] [internal quotation marks omitted]; Carlton v Mystic Transp., Inc.

2012In his opening brief, plaintiff states that his claims “should be analyzed under the framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973).” The McDonnell Douglas framework has been adopted for use in discrimination actions brought under the respective Human Rights Laws of the State and City of New York (see Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d 295, 305 [2004], citing Ferrante v American Lung Assn., 90 NY2d 623, 629-630 [1997]).

2012In his opening brief, plaintiff states that his claims “should be analyzed under the framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973).” The McDonnell Douglas framework has been adopted for use in discrimination actions brought under the respective Human Rights Laws of the State and City of New York (see Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d 295, 305 [2004], citing Ferrante v American Lung Assn., 90 NY2d 623, 629-630 [1997]).

2012Thus, that an employee has made out a prima facie case under the McDonnell Douglas framework does not necessarily mean that he or she will succeed in defeating a summary judgment motion supported by admissible evidence of legitimate reasons for the employer’s challenged action (see Stephenson, 6 NY3d at 271 [although “there was enough evidence ... to establish a prima facie case” of age discrimination, “(a)fter the nondiscriminatory reasons were given and the burden shifted to them, plaintiffs did not prove that the reasons given were pretextual”]; Forrest, 3 NY3d at 307 [“plaintiff . . . cann

2012Thus, that an employee has made out a prima facie case under the McDonnell Douglas framework does not necessarily mean that he or she will succeed in defeating a summary judgment motion supported by admissible evidence of legitimate reasons for the employer’s challenged action (see Stephenson, 6 NY3d at 271 [although “there was enough evidence ... to establish a prima facie case” of age discrimination, “(a)fter the nondiscriminatory reasons were given and the burden shifted to them, plaintiffs did not prove that the reasons given were pretextual”]; Forrest, 3 NY3d at 307 [“plaintiff . . . cann

2012In a close case, this Court should not substitute its judgment for that of a jury (cf. Albunio v City of New York, 16 NY3d 472 [2011] [upholding a jury verdict for a plaintiff in a case that is a “closer” call]; Vivenzio v City of Syracuse, 611 F3d 98, 106 [2d Cir 2010] [“It is not the province of the court itself to decide what inferences should be drawn . . . ; if there is any evidence in the record from any source from which a reasonable inference could be drawn in favor of the nonmoving party, summary judgment is improper”] [internal quotation marks omitted]; Carlton v Mystic Transp., Inc.

2012In a close case, this Court should not substitute its judgment for that of a jury (cf. Albunio v City of New York, 16 NY3d 472 [2011] [upholding a jury verdict for a plaintiff in a case that is a “closer” call]; Vivenzio v City of Syracuse, 611 F3d 98, 106 [2d Cir 2010] [“It is not the province of the court itself to decide what inferences should be drawn . . . ; if there is any evidence in the record from any source from which a reasonable inference could be drawn in favor of the nonmoving party, summary judgment is improper”] [internal quotation marks omitted]; Carlton v Mystic Transp., Inc.

2012Disabilities, 21 AD3d 288, 290 [2005] [affirming summary judgment dismissing discrimination claims although plaintiffs established a prima facie case]; Roberts v Philip Morris Mgt.

2012Disabilities, 21 AD3d 288, 290 [2005] [affirming summary judgment dismissing discrimination claims although plaintiffs established a prima facie case]; Roberts v Philip Morris Mgt.

2012Although plaintiff himself has not suggested that we analyze this case under a mixed-motive framework, in adherence to the holding of Bennett and to the aforementioned intent of the LCRRA that the NYCHRL be construed “broadly in favor of discrimination plaintiffs, to the extent that such a construction is reasonably possible” (Albunio, 16 NY3d at 477-478 ), we will subject this action both to a McDonnell Douglas analysis and to a mixed-motive analysis.

2012Although plaintiff himself has not suggested that we analyze this case under a mixed-motive framework, in adherence to the holding of Bennett and to the aforementioned intent of the LCRRA that the NYCHRL be construed “broadly in favor of discrimination plaintiffs, to the extent that such a construction is reasonably possible” (Albunio, 16 NY3d at 477-478 ), we will subject this action both to a McDonnell Douglas analysis and to a mixed-motive analysis.

2026In this action alleging housing discrimination, plaintiffs met their prima facie burden of showing that they were members of a protected class, and that the challenged actions occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination ( see Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-107[5][a]; Francis v Kings Park Manor, Inc. , 992 F3d 67, 73 [2d Cir 2021]; Hudson v Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. , 138 AD3d 511, 514 [1st Dept 2016] [applying the McDonnell Douglas framework in the employment context], lv denied 28 NY3d 902 [2016]).

2026In this action alleging housing discrimination, plaintiffs met their prima facie burden of showing that they were members of a protected class, and that the challenged actions occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination ( see Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-107[5][a]; Francis v Kings Park Manor, Inc. , 992 F3d 67, 73 [2d Cir 2021]; Hudson v Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. , 138 AD3d 511, 514 [1st Dept 2016] [applying the McDonnell Douglas framework in the employment context], lv denied 28 NY3d 902 [2016]).

2024Sch. of Medicine, 155 AD3d 66, 73 [1st Dept 2017]) but imposes a lesser burden on the plaintiff on the third (Melman v Montefiore Med.

2024Sch. of Medicine, 155 AD3d 66, 73 [1st Dept 2017]) but imposes a lesser burden on the plaintiff on the third (Melman v Montefiore Med.

2026In this action alleging housing discrimination, plaintiffs met their prima facie burden of showing that they were members of a protected class, and that the challenged actions occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination ( see Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-107[5][a]; Francis v Kings Park Manor, Inc. , 992 F3d 67, 73 [2d Cir 2021]; Hudson v Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. , 138 AD3d 511, 514 [1st Dept 2016] [applying the McDonnell Douglas framework in the employment context], lv denied 28 NY3d 902 [2016]).

2026In this action alleging housing discrimination, plaintiffs met their prima facie burden of showing that they were members of a protected class, and that the challenged actions occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination ( see Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-107[5][a]; Francis v Kings Park Manor, Inc. , 992 F3d 67, 73 [2d Cir 2021]; Hudson v Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. , 138 AD3d 511, 514 [1st Dept 2016] [applying the McDonnell Douglas framework in the employment context], lv denied 28 NY3d 902 [2016]).

2025Ctr., 372 Fed Appx 137, 139 [2d Cir 2010]), which posits that a plaintiff who asserts a claim to recover for retaliation bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case by showing that he or she is a member of a protected class, he or she was qualified to hold the position, and that he or she suffered adverse employment action under circumstances giving rise to an inference of retaliation.

2025Ctr., 372 Fed Appx 137, 139 [2d Cir 2010]), which posits that a plaintiff who asserts a claim to recover for retaliation bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case by showing that he or she is a member of a protected class, he or she was qualified to hold the position, and that he or she suffered adverse employment action under circumstances giving rise to an inference of retaliation.

2024Retaliation claims under the NYSHRL are analyzed under the McDonnell Douglas framework (McRedmond v Sutton Place Rest. & Bar, Inc., 95 AD3d 671, 674 [1st Dept 2012]), whereas retaliation claims under the NYCHRL must be analyzed under both the McDonnell Douglas and mixed-motive frameworks (Ellison v Chartis Claims, Inc., 178 AD3d 665 , 667-668 [2d Dept 2019], lv dismissed 35 NY3d 997 [2020]).

2024Retaliation claims under the NYSHRL are analyzed under the McDonnell Douglas framework (McRedmond v Sutton Place Rest. & Bar, Inc., 95 AD3d 671, 674 [1st Dept 2012]), whereas retaliation claims under the NYCHRL must be analyzed under both the McDonnell Douglas and mixed-motive frameworks (Ellison v Chartis Claims, Inc., 178 AD3d 665 , 667-668 [2d Dept 2019], lv dismissed 35 NY3d 997 [2020]).