- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department
- Case
- Faula v. Auxiliary of Elmhurst Hospital Center
- Date
- May 28, 2026
- Slip Op. No.
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03372
Background
Plaintiff Maria Rivadeneria Faula brought hostile work environment and retaliation claims under the New York State Human Rights Law (SHRL) and New York City Human Rights Law (CHRL) against her employer and an individual defendant. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that both named defendants were improper parties for the claims as alleged. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted the motion to dismiss, and the plaintiff appealed.
Holding
The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the dismissal. The Court held that the complaint was properly dismissed because both defendants were improper parties. As to the individual defendant, the Court applied the standard from Russell v. New York University, 42 NY3d 377 (2024), holding that plaintiff failed to allege that the individual had a role in administering the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of her employment sufficient to hold that person individually liable under the applicable statutes. The Court found that the individual defendant lacked the supervisory or managerial authority required for individual liability under the SHRL and CHRL. The dismissal as to the employer entity was likewise affirmed based on the particular organizational and employment relationship at issue.
Takeaways
Under the Court of Appeals’ decision in Russell v. New York University, individual liability for employment discrimination under the SHRL and CHRL requires that the individual defendant had a role in administering the terms, conditions, or privileges of the plaintiff’s employment. A coworker or supervisor who engaged in harassing conduct but did not have authority over the plaintiff’s employment terms cannot be held individually liable. Plaintiffs bringing employment discrimination claims must carefully identify the correct parties and allege facts demonstrating each defendant’s role in the employment relationship.
Why It Matters
This decision applies the Court of Appeals’ recent Russell framework to define the boundaries of individual liability in employment discrimination cases. Practitioners should note that the Russell standard focuses on whether the individual defendant had authority over the plaintiff’s employment terms and conditions, not merely whether the individual engaged in the allegedly discriminatory conduct. This distinction is critical for proper party identification at the pleading stage, as naming an individual who lacks the requisite authority will result in dismissal at the outset of the litigation.