| Brightman v Prison Health Servs., Inc. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 03772 [62 AD3d 472] |
| May 12, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Victoria Brightman, Respondent, v Prison Health Services,Inc., et al., Appellants. |
—[*1] Taubman Kimelman & Soroka, LLP, New York (Antonette M. Milcetic of counsel), forrespondent.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dianne T. Renwick, J.), entered March 20, 2008,which denied defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the action,unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff alleges that defendants retaliated against her for filing a complaint against one ofthem for sexual harassment. This retaliation took the form of, inter alia, giving her a moreonerous workload than her similarly situated colleagues, denying her the opportunity to workovertime, failing to pay her on the rare occasions when she did work overtime, denying hervacation and holiday pay, transferring her from her preferred workplace to another locationwhere her harasser worked, and forcing her to work as a "floater," with no permanent worklocation. Viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, these allegations state a claim forretaliation pursuant to the New York State Human Rights Law, Executive Law § 296 (see generally Clayton v Best Buy Co.,Inc., 48 AD3d 277, 278 [2008]; Mohammad v Board of Mgrs. of 50 E. 72nd St.Condominium, 262 AD2d 76, 77 [1999]). A fortiori, they state a claim under the New YorkCity Human Rights Law (Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-107), which is moreliberal than either its state or federal counterpart (see Administrative Code §8-130; Williams v New York CityHous. Auth., 61 AD3d 62, 65-67 [2009]). Defendants' alleged retaliatory acts were"materially adverse" in that they "well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making. . . a charge of discrimination" (Burlington N. & S. F. R. Co. v White, 548US 53, 68 [2006] [internal quotation marks omitted]). They also satisfy the requirement of theNew York City Human Rights Law that they "must be reasonably [*2]likely to deter a person from engaging in protected activity"(Administrative Code § 8-107 [7]). Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Catterson,Richter and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.