PART 35 - Nymag

termination of Liin and Bradford, and constructive termination of Heniiigan.
Likewise, Hennigan's hostile work environment claims against Ceiitro, are sufficicntly
alleged, as noted above.
There€ore, dismissal of the fifth and sixth causes of action is unwarranted.
As to the seventh and eighth causes of action, in order to make out a claim for retaliation
under both llie State HRL and the City HRL, a plaintiff must adequately allege that: (1) they
engaged in a protected activity; (2) their employer was aware that they participated in siich
.. - -. activity; (3) they suffered an adverse employment- aetion: and (4) there is a G a u d sonnection
between the protected activity and the adverse action (Hernandez v Bankers Trust Co., 5 AD3d
146, 773 NYS2d 35 [I" Dept 20041).
Defendants' motions to dismiss these claims are premised on the assertion that plaintirfs
failed to adequately allege that they suffered adverse employment actions by the defendants. As
noted above, however, plaintiffs' complaint sufficiently alleges that defendants terminated or
constructively terminated the plaintiffs after defendants received complaints concerning Burrell's
alleged discriminatory conduct. Therefore, dismissal of the seventh and eighth causes of actioii
for retaliation is denied.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED that the motions (sequence 001 and 002) by defendants Anne W. Burrell, 74
Seventh, LLC d/b/a Centro Vinoteca, Sasha Muniak, and George W. Elkins to dismiss Ihe
Complaint pursuant to CPLR 321 l(a)(7) is denied, in their entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that defendaiits shall serve a copy of this order with notice of entry within 20
31
. -. ._ .