Second Circuit Confirms Alignment Between New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws in Race Discrimination Case

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has reinstated a racial discrimination claim brought under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), offering a notable interpretation of the law that aligns it with the more liberal standards of the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). The ruling came in Flanagan v. Girl Scouts of Suffolk County, a case involving the abrupt and allegedly discriminatory termination of a Black executive, Kyle Grant.

Kyle Grant had risen through the ranks over 17 years to become the Director of Technology at the Girl Scouts of Suffolk County (GSSC). When a new President and CEO came on board in 2020, she allegedly declared—without any assessment of Grant’s performance—that he would be “one of the first people fired,” branding him as “unqualified” and “overpaid.” She claimed he only held the position because his mother, who is also Black, had previously served as CEO.

Grant’s salary was slashed by 40%, the largest reduction among staff. White colleagues faced smaller reductions, and when Grant’s coworkers defended him, their salaries were further cut. The new CEO also demoted Grant under questionable reasoning, while white peers without staff maintained their titles and pay. Notably, she told others to “be careful” with Grant, implying he might “get angry and destroy property”—comments the plaintiff argued evoked racist stereotypes of the “angry Black man."

The district court had initially dismissed Grant’s racial discrimination claim. But the Second Circuit reversed that decision, holding that the complaint "plausibly alleges" that race was a motivating factor in Grant’s termination and other adverse actions. Under Second Circuit precedent, a plaintiff need only provide “minimal support for the proposition that the employer was motivated by discriminatory intent” at the pleading stage. Notably, the Court emphasized that “actions taken by an employer that disadvantage an employee for no logical reason constitute strong evidence of an intent to discriminate.” The Second Circuit found that the CEO's lack of any performance-based rationale for Grant’s treatment, combined with the disparate treatment of white employees, supported an inference of racial animus.

Perhaps the most legally consequential aspect of the ruling lies in how the Court interpreted the NYSHRL. Historically, the NYSHRL was viewed as aligned with federal standards. However, following 2019 amendments, courts are now instructed to construe the NYSHRL “liberally,” in the same way the NYCHRL has been interpreted since its own overhaul two decades ago. The Second Circuit confirms in Flanagan that there is now no daylight between the two laws; both require a plaintiff-friendly construction that lowers the pleading burden and broadens the reach of the protections offered. The Second Circuit has now made clear that there is no meaningful difference between how discrimination claims are analyzed under state and city law—a development that should shape litigation strategies going forward.