Opinion ID: 187525
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Claims under the NYHRL

Text: The district court dismissed all counts under the NYHRL for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Murphy v. PriceWaterhouseCoopers, LLP, 357 F.Supp.2d 230, 244 (2004). Reviewing the issue de novo, Covad Commc'ns Co. v. Bell Atl. Corp., 398 F.3d 666, 670-71 (D.C.Cir.2005), we conclude the district court erred. The district court reasoned that in order to assert a claim under the NYHRL a non-New-York resident such as Schuler or Murphy must allege that the actual impact of the discriminatory act was felt in New York, Murphy, 357 F.Supp.2d at 244, which the appellants have not done. In an intervening decision in a related case we held it is enough that a discriminatory act occurred in New York. Schuler v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, 514 F.3d 1365, 1378 (2008). Thereafter the district court declined to reinstate the appellants' claims because it found no evidence . . . an act of discrimination occurred in New York. Murphy v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, 580 F.Supp.2d 16, 22 n. 17 (2008). The relevant question is whether the appellants' complaint alleges facts that, if true, would establish a violation of the NYHRL. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The appellants allege PwC did not promote them because it has a policy of promoting only younger employees. Both that policy and a decision pursuant thereto, if adopted in New York, would violate § 296 of the NYHRL. In Schuler we held that, in view of his assertion that the company is headquartered in New York, Schuler was entitled to the reasonable inference the alleged policy was adopted in New York. 514 F.3d at 1377. Based upon our reasoning in that case the appellants argue they are entitled to the reasonable inference the discrimination alleged in this case occurred in New York. [] PwC says Schuler does not control because it addressed only PwC's adoption and maintenance of a discriminatory policy, not the discrete decision[] not to admit [Schuler] to partnership. To which we say: Pettifoggery and piffle! Because the appellants in this case allege PwC is headquartered in New York, Compl. ¶ 4, both appellants are entitled to the reasonable inference the decisions not to promote them occurred in New York. The district court's rationale for dismissing the claims under the NYHRL both as to Schuler and as to Murphy was therefore incorrect.