82 New York opinions name it 6 courts 1994–2026 41 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blindgreen2 sentences2026Activities must be related to opposing or complaining about unlawful discrimination to be considered "protected activities" for purposes of a retaliation claim ( see Forrest , 3 NY3d at 313 ; Treglia , 313 F3d at 720 ; Natofsky v City of New York , 921 F3d 337, 354 [2d Cir 2019]; [*4]Frantti v New York , 850 Fed Appx 17 , *21 [2d Cir 2021]). 2026As to the retaliation claim, defendants seeking summary judgment must either conclusively refute a plaintiff's prima facie claim that "(1) she has engaged in protected activity, (2) her employer was aware that she participated in such activity, (3) she suffered an adverse employment action based upon her activity, and (4) there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action" ( Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind , 3 NY3d at 312-313; see Matter of Clifton Park Apts., LLC v New York State Div. of Human Rights , 41 NY3d 326, 331 [2024]), or provide legitimate, non-p | 6 | 12 |
Fletcher v. Dakota, Inc.green2 sentences2025To establish a retaliation claim under the NYCHRL, a plaintiff must demonstrate that "(l) [the plaintiff] participated in a protected activity known to defendants; (2) defendants took an employment action that disadvantaged [the plaintiff]; and (3) a causal connection exists between the protected activity and the adverse employment action" (Fletcher v Dakota, Inc., 99 AD3d 43, 51-52 ). 2025To establish a retaliation claim under the NYCHRL, a plaintiff must demonstrate that "(1) [the plaintiff! participated in a protected activity known to defendants; (2) defendants took an employment action that disadvantaged [the plaintiff!; and (3) a causal connection exists between the protected activity and the adverse employment action (Fletcher v Dakota, Inc., 99 AD3d 43, 51-52 [1st Dept 2012]). | 5 | 8 |
Albunio v. City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2024NYCHRL offers broader protection with regard to a retaliation claim ( Albunio v City of New York , 16 NY3d 472, 477-478 [2011]); Reichman , 179 AD3d at 1119 ). 2024NYCHRL offers broader protection with regard to a retaliation claim ( Albunio v City of New York , 16 NY3d 472, 477-478 [2011]); Reichman , 179 AD3d at 1119 ). | 4 | 6 |
Seemungal v. New York State Dept. of Fin. Servs.green2 sentences2025Servs., 222 AD3d 467,468 [1st Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). 2025Servs., 222 AD3d 467, 468 [1st Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). | 4 | 4 |
Pezhman v. City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2024"Filing a grievance complaining of conduct other than unlawful discrimination is not a protected activity subject to a retaliation claim" under either the NYCHRL or NYSHRL (Pezhman v City ofNew York, 47 AD3d 493,494 [1st Dept. 2008] [citing Forrest, 3 NY3d at 313 ]). 2024"Protected activity" refers to "actions taken to protest or oppose statutorily prohibited discrimination." Aspilaire v Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc ., 612 F Supp 2d 289, 308 (SD NY 2009); see also Pezhman v City of New York, 47 AD3d 493, 494 (1st Dept 2008) ("[C]omplaining of conduct other than unlawful discrimination is not a protected activity subject to a retaliation claim under the State and City Human Rights Laws"). | 4 | 4 |
McKenzie v. Meridian Capital Group, LLCgreen2 sentences2013Under both New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws, a request for reasonable accommodation is not a protected activity for purposes of a retaliation claim (see McKenzie v Meridian Capital Group, LLC, 35 AD3d 676, 677-678 [2d Dept 2006]). 2013Under both New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws, a request for reasonable accommodation is not a protected activity for purposes of a retaliation claim (see McKenzie v Meridian Capital Group, LLC, 35 AD3d 676, 677-678 [2d Dept 2006]). | 3 | 3 |
Williams v. New York City Housing Authoritygreen2 sentences2024Each of these cases considered the appropriate standard for evaluating a discrete aspect of a discrimination claim—in Williams , whether harassment must be severe and pervasive ( 61 AD3d 62 ); in Bennett , when evidence of pretext allowed a case to proceed to trial ( 92 AD3d 29 ); and in Albunio , whether implicit opposition to discrimination was sufficient to support a retaliation claim ( 16 NY3d 472 ). 2012Auth., 61 AD3d 62, 71 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 702 [2009]). | 2 | 3 |
Bond v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.green2 sentences2026Corp. , 215 AD3d 469, 469-470 [1st Dept 2023]). [*2] As for the retaliation claim, plaintiff's refusal to kiss Piliere while filming a movie in 2015 does not constitute "protected activity," because she admittedly refused to kiss him due to a "health concern" ( see e.g. 2026Corp. , 215 AD3d 469, 469-470 [1st Dept 2023]). [*2] As for the retaliation claim, plaintiff's refusal to kiss Piliere while filming a movie in 2015 does not constitute "protected activity," because she admittedly refused to kiss him due to a "health concern" ( see e.g. | 2 | 2 |
Aspilaire v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc.green2 sentences2024"Protected activity" refers to "actions taken to protest or oppose statutorily prohibited discrimination." Aspilaire v Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc ., 612 F Supp 2d 289, 308 (SD NY 2009); see also Pezhman v City of New York, 47 AD3d 493, 494 (1st Dept 2008) ("[C]omplaining of conduct other than unlawful discrimination is not a protected activity subject to a retaliation claim under the State and City Human Rights Laws"). 2024"Protected activity" refers to "actions taken to protest or oppose statutorily prohibited discrimination." Aspilaire v Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc ., 612 F Supp 2d 289, 308 (SD NY 2009); see also Pezhman v City of New York, 47 AD3d 493, 494 (1st Dept 2008) ("[C]omplaining of conduct other than unlawful discrimination is not a protected activity subject to a retaliation claim under the State and City Human Rights Laws"). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Chappellegreen2 sentences2024Similarly, in Hernandez v. Bankers Trust Co. , 5 AD3d 146, 147 (1st Dept 2004), the Appellate Division, First Department, rejected a retaliation claim where the plaintiff's complaint of discrimination followed reprimands for a terminable offense, severing any causal connection. 2024Similarly, in Hernandez v. Bankers Trust Co. , 5 AD3d 146, 147 (1st Dept 2004), the Appellate Division, First Department, rejected a retaliation claim where the plaintiff's complaint of discrimination followed reprimands for a terminable offense, severing any causal connection. | 2 | 2 |
Summa v. Hofstra Universitygreen2 sentences2024John's established sufficient temporal proximity to infer causation (Opp. at 20-21 ). "[T]he causal connection needed for proof of a retaliation claim can be established indirectly by showing that the protected activity was followed closely in time by the adverse action" (Summa v. Hofstra Univ., 708 F3d 115, 127-28 [2d Cir 2013] [internal citations omitted]). 2023"The causal connection needed for proof of a retaliation claim can be established indirectly by showing that the protected activity was closely followed in time by the adverse action'" ( Summa v Hofstra Univ., 708 F3d 115, 127-128 [2d Cir 2013], quoting Cifra v Gen. | 2 | 2 |
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Greengreen2 sentences2022Footnote 7: In dicta, the District Court also concluded that, notwithstanding the temporal proximity, the retaliation claim could not survive the federal McDonell Douglas analysis ( id. at * 37; see McDonnell Douglas Corp. v Green, 411 US 792 [1973]). 2022Footnote 7: In dicta, the District Court also concluded that, notwithstanding the temporal proximity, the retaliation claim could not survive the federal McDonell Douglas analysis ( id. at * 37; see McDonnell Douglas Corp. v Green, 411 US 792 [1973]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Muwakkilgreen2 sentences2022Neither decision made any findings with respect to the issue of defendant's motives for pursuing arbitration, and the retaliation claim did not arise solely from the transactions at issue in those prior proceedings ( see Kahn v Taub , 47 AD3d 455, 456 [1st Dept 2008]).THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. 2022Neither decision made any findings with respect to the issue of defendant's motives for pursuing arbitration, and the retaliation claim did not arise solely from the transactions at issue in those prior proceedings ( see Kahn v Taub , 47 AD3d 455, 456 [1st Dept 2008]). | 2 | 2 |
Albunio v. City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2012Thus, to make out a retaliation claim under the City HRL, the complaint must allege that: (1) Fletcher participated in a protected activity known to defendants; (2) defendants took an action that disadvantaged him; and (3) a causal connection exists between the protected activity and the adverse action (see Albunio v City of New York, 67 AD3d 407, 413 [2009], affd 16 NY3d 472 [2011]). 2 The complaint alleges that Fletcher began to oppose discrimination (or conduct that he perceived as discriminatory) after he was elected president of the coop board in May 2007. 2012Thus, to make out a retaliation claim under the City HRL, the complaint must allege that: (1) Fletcher participated in a protected activity known to defendants; (2) defendants took an action that disadvantaged him; and (3) a causal connection exists between the protected activity and the adverse action (see Albunio v City of New York, 67 AD3d 407, 413 [2009], affd 16 NY3d 472 [2011]). 2 The complaint alleges that Fletcher began to oppose discrimination (or conduct that he perceived as discriminatory) after he was elected president of the coop board in May 2007. | 2 | 2 |
Coleman v. Fischergreen2 sentences2012To the extent that petitioner’s version of events differed from that set forth by the commissary clerk and raised a retaliation defense, such differences presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of White v Fischer, 87 AD3d at 1250 ; Matter of Coleman v Fischer, 87 AD3d 778, 779 [2011]; Matter of Brown v Taylor, 62 AD3d at 1231 ). 2012To the extent that petitioner’s version of events differed from that set forth by the commissary clerk and raised a retaliation defense, such differences presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of White v Fischer, 87 AD3d at 1250 ; Matter of Coleman v Fischer, 87 AD3d 778, 779 [2011]; Matter of Brown v Taylor, 62 AD3d at 1231 ). | 2 | 2 |
Farrugia v. North Shore University Hospitalgreen2 sentences2012Hosp., 13 Misc 3d 740, 752 [2006]). 2012Hosp., 13 Misc 3d 740, 752 [2006]). | 2 | 2 |
Hicks v. Bainesgreen2 sentences2012The fourth prong is satisfied by plaintiffs’ allegation that defendants took the above mentioned adverse action in retaliation for his efforts to defend victims of discrimination by them (Hicks v Baines, 593 F3d 159, 170 [2d Cir 2010]). 2012The fourth prong is satisfied by plaintiffs’ allegation that defendants took the above mentioned adverse action in retaliation for his efforts to defend victims of discrimination by them (Hicks v Baines, 593 F3d 159, 170 [2d Cir 2010]). | 2 | 2 |
Reichman v. City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2024NYCHRL offers broader protection with regard to a retaliation claim ( Albunio v City of New York , 16 NY3d 472, 477-478 [2011]); Reichman , 179 AD3d at 1119 ). 2024NYCHRL offers broader protection with regard to a retaliation claim ( Albunio v City of New York , 16 NY3d 472, 477-478 [2011]); Reichman , 179 AD3d at 1119 ). | 1 | 3 |
Weixel v. The Board Of Education Of The City Of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2026Additionally, a request for a reasonable accommodation may be considered a protected activity under the RA and ADA ( see Weixel v Board of Educ. of City of New York , 287 F3d 138 , 148-149 [2d Cir 2002]), but not under the NYSHRL ( see D'Amico v City of New York , 159 AD3d 558 , 558-559 [1st Dept. 2018]). 2017Weixel v Board of Educ. of City of New York, 287 F3d 138, 149 [2d Cir 2002]) and that he also established, prima facie, the remaining elements of a retaliation claim, we would nonetheless find that defendants satisfied their burden of demonstrating legitimate, independent and nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating plaintiffs employment. | 1 | 2 |
Joseph v. Treglia v. Town of Manliusgreen2 sentences2026Activities must be related to opposing or complaining about unlawful discrimination to be considered "protected activities" for purposes of a retaliation claim ( see Forrest , 3 NY3d at 313 ; Treglia , 313 F3d at 720 ; Natofsky v City of New York , 921 F3d 337, 354 [2d Cir 2019]; [*4]Frantti v New York , 850 Fed Appx 17 , *21 [2d Cir 2021]). 2024More specifically, Executive Law § 296 (7) states: “It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person engaged in any activity to which this section applies to retaliate or discriminate against any person because [they have] opposed any practices forbidden under this article or because [they have] filed a complaint, testified or assisted in any proceeding under this article.” -4- -5- No. 2 The parties do not dispute that the retaliation claim before us should be “analyzed under the same burden-shifting framework established for” other discrimination cases (Treglia v Town of Manlius | 1 | 2 |
| Graham v. New York State Office of Mental Healthgreen | 1 | 1 |
Barton v. Bartongreen1 sentence2026We conclude that SDHR properly amended the complaint to conform the pleading to the proof by including the June 2020 and March 2021 letters on the retaliation claim ( see generally CPLR 3025 [c]; 9 NYCRR 465.4 [a]; Kimso Apts. , LLC v Gandhi , 24 NY3d 403, 411 [2014]; Matter of Barton v Barton , 111 AD3d 1348, 1349 [4th Dept 2013]). | 1 | 1 |
Natofsky v. City Of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2026Activities must be related to opposing or complaining about unlawful discrimination to be considered "protected activities" for purposes of a retaliation claim ( see Forrest , 3 NY3d at 313 ; Treglia , 313 F3d at 720 ; Natofsky v City of New York , 921 F3d 337, 354 [2d Cir 2019]; [*4]Frantti v New York , 850 Fed Appx 17 , *21 [2d Cir 2021]). 2026Said differently, this email appears to be an unremarkable communication to gather information, and not the sort of communication that constitutes a protected activity for purposes of a retaliation claim ( see Natofsky , 921 F3d at 354 [employee's email claiming his demotion was "illegitimate and contrary to law" was not a protected activity as it did not specifically allege discrimination]; Frantti , 850 Fed Appx at *21 [employee's email seeking reassignment was not a protected activity because it neither complained of discrimination nor sought an accommodation]). | 1 | 1 |
Lucio v. New York City Department of Educationgreen1 sentence2026"While it is unnecessary for an individual to specifically invoke the word discrimination when complaining in order to alert her employer to her protected activity, there must be some basis to conclude that the employer was aware that the plaintiff engaged in protected activity" ( Lucio v New York City Dept. of Educ. , 575 Fed Appx 3, *6 [2d Cir 2014]). | 1 | 1 |
Kimso Apartments, LLC v. Mahesh Gandhigreen2 sentences2026We conclude that SDHR properly amended the complaint to conform the pleading to the proof by including the June 2020 and March 2021 letters on the retaliation claim ( see generally CPLR 3025 [c]; 9 NYCRR 465.4 [a]; Kimso Apts. , LLC v Gandhi , 24 NY3d 403, 411 [2014]; Matter of Barton v Barton , 111 AD3d 1348, 1349 [4th Dept 2013]). 2026We reject petitioner's contention that it was prejudiced by the amendment ( see generally Kimso Apts. , LLC , 24 NY3d at 411 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Castro v. City of New Yorkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Franco v. Hyatt Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| MATTER OF MOHAWK FINISHING PRODS., INC. v. State Div. of Human Rightsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Crossgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Kwan v. The Andalex Group LLCgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Elizabeth Gordon v. New York City Board of Educationgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Matter of Bellamy v. Noethgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Matter of Haigler v. Lilleygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Vig v. New York Hairspray Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Velez v. Levygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Kim v. Goldberg, Weprin, Finkel, Goldstein, LLPgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bederka v. Symsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Maeweathergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Pace v. Ogden Services Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| New York State Department of Correctional Services v. New York State Division of Human Rightsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cadet-Legros v. New York University Hospital Center
green
2 sentences2022Defendants are also entitled to summary judgment dismissing the retaliation claim because their submissions demonstrate that plaintiff had failed to meet expectations two years in a row before being placed on a PIP and terminated ( see Cadet-Legros , 135 AD3d at 206-207 ). 2022Defendants are also entitled to summary judgment dismissing the retaliation claim because their submissions demonstrate that plaintiff had failed to meet expectations two years in a row before being placed on a PIP and terminated ( see Cadet-Legros , 135 AD3d at 206-207 ). | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Ferrer v. New York State Division of Human Rights
green
2 sentences2013Defendant’s statements that it would fire her were not so pervasive as to establish a hostile work environment (see Ferrer v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 82 AD3d 431 [1st Dept 2011]). 2013Defendant’s statements that it would fire her were not so pervasive as to establish a hostile work environment (see Ferrer v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 82 AD3d 431 [1st Dept 2011]). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Asabor v. Archdiocese
green
2 sentences2013To the extent petitioner’s retaliation claim is premised upon being laid off, that claim fails because the activity for which petitioner alleges she was retaliated against was not a protected activity (see Executive Law § 296 [7]; Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d 295, 312-313 [2004]; Asabor v Archdiocese of N.Y., 102 AD3d 524 , 528 [1st Dept 2013]). 2013To the extent petitioner’s retaliation claim is premised upon being laid off, that claim fails because the activity for which petitioner alleges she was retaliated against was not a protected activity (see Executive Law § 296 [7]; Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d 295, 312-313 [2004]; Asabor v Archdiocese of N.Y., 102 AD3d 524 , 528 [1st Dept 2013]). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Shabazz v. Artus
green
2 sentences2012To the extent that petitioner’s version of events differed from that set forth by the commissary clerk and raised a retaliation defense, such differences presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of White v Fischer, 87 AD3d at 1250 ; Matter of Coleman v Fischer, 87 AD3d 778, 779 [2011]; Matter of Brown v Taylor, 62 AD3d at 1231 ). 2012To the extent that petitioner’s version of events differed from that set forth by the commissary clerk and raised a retaliation defense, such differences presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of White v Fischer, 87 AD3d at 1250 ; Matter of Coleman v Fischer, 87 AD3d 778, 779 [2011]; Matter of Brown v Taylor, 62 AD3d at 1231 ). | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Matter of Matthews Trust No. 1
green
2 sentences2012Auth., 61 AD3d 62, 71 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 702 [2009]). 2012Auth., 61 AD3d 62, 71 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 702 [2009]). | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Claim of Whittaker v. Central Square Central School District
green
2 sentences2012To the extent that petitioner’s version of events differed from that set forth by the commissary clerk and raised a retaliation defense, such differences presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of White v Fischer, 87 AD3d at 1250 ; Matter of Coleman v Fischer, 87 AD3d 778, 779 [2011]; Matter of Brown v Taylor, 62 AD3d at 1231 ). 2012To the extent that petitioner’s version of events differed from that set forth by the commissary clerk and raised a retaliation defense, such differences presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of White v Fischer, 87 AD3d at 1250 ; Matter of Coleman v Fischer, 87 AD3d 778, 779 [2011]; Matter of Brown v Taylor, 62 AD3d at 1231 ). | 2 | 2012–2012 |
| Francis v. Kings Park Manor, Inc. green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| Witchard v. Montefiore Medical Center green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Thomas v. Mintz green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Roberts v. Tishman Speyer Properties, L.P. green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Bennett v. Health Management Systems, Inc. green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Singleton v. City of New York green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Sorrentino v. Bohbot Entertainment & Media, Inc. green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Allied World Natl. Assur. Co. v. Great Divide Ins. Co. green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Noho Star Inc. v. New York State Division of Human Rights green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Torres v. Gristede's Operating Corp. green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Cooper v. Town of East Hampton green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| O'Dell v. Trans World Entertainment Corp. green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Ralin v. City of New York green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.