Opinion ID: 3170319
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: NYCHRL Claim

Text: The district court also correctly determined that Johnson failed to state a discrimination claim under the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”). “[C]ourts must analyze NYCHRL claims separately and independently from any federal and state law claims.” Mihalik v. Credit Agricole Cheuvreux N. Am., Inc., 715 F.3d 102, 109 (2d Cir. 2013). NYCHRL claims are to be reviewed more liberally than Title VII claims, and the provisions of the NYCHRL must be construed broadly in favor of plaintiffs alleging discrimination. See Loeffler v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp., 582 F.3d 268, 278 (2d Cir. 2009); Nelson v. HSBC Bank USA, 929 N.Y.S.2d 259, 262 (2d Dep’t 2011). 4 Although the district court erroneously applied the federal employment-discrimination standards to Johnson’s NYCHRL claim, dismissal was warranted nonetheless, and we may affirm the judgment below on any basis appearing in the record. Carpenter v. Republic of Chile, 610 F.3d 776, 781 n.6 (2d Cir. 2010). Johnson failed to allege that she was fired or harassed “because of” her protected characteristics, and she did not plausibly allege any facts that would give rise to such a connection. See N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(1)(a). We have considered all of Johnson’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 5