PART 35 - Nymag

321 1 (a)(7) dismissal motion.
. . . . . . . . .. - -- .-
Hemiigan also failed to adequately allege that the circuiiistances surrounding those few
comments by Burrell give rise to an inference of discrimination by Centro. Thus, Hemiigan
failed to state causes of action against Centro.
Further, plaintiffs’ claim in their fifth and sixth causes of action that defendants’ “verbal
abuse aiid use of denieaiiiiig language” constituted hostile work environinent harassment based
on their sex, is insufficient. The Complaint is devoid of a single allegation against either Muiiiak
-Lor
Elkins relating to ----- plaintiffs’ llostile work envirolllnentclai~s~n~assuch,~is claim shoui be dismissed in favor of Muniak and Elkins. Likewise, Hennigan’s hostile work environment
claims against Centro, which are based on two alleged iiistances Involving five alleged comments
by defendant Burrell more than a Ibur (4) month period, fall short. At most, the alleged
comments were offensive utterances. Thus, Hennigan’s hostile work environment claim against
Centro should fail.
Also, plaintiffs’ claims in their seventh and eighth causes of action that defendants
_--.
retaliated against them also should be dismissed. Plaintiffs claim that defendants’ discriminatory
adverse employment actions taken against plaintiffs were retaliatory in nature in that they were
motivated in whole or in part by plaintiffs’ complaints of the discrimiiqation that they suffered by
Burrell fails to adequately allege that plaintiffs suffered adverse employment actions by
defend ants.
Although the inere fact that defendant Burrell is a female and was not the supervisor of
any of plaintiffs are not, standing alone, grounds for dismissal, Burrell’s gender and job
responsibilities is worth noting when evaluating whether her comments, even if true, were merely
8