On January 14, 2015, in Chiara v. Town of New Castle, the New York Appellate Division, Second Department, held that an employee could pursue a religious discrimination claim under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYHRL) based on his association with a member of a protected class. The Appellate Division reversed a New York Supreme Court grant of summary judgment to the town, ruling that although the plaintiff was not Jewish, his marriage to a Jewish woman provided a basis for him to show he was subjected to religious discrimination. (No. 2012-06659, (N.Y. App. Div. Jan. 14, 2015).)

The plaintiff, Jeffrey Chiara, worked for the Town of New Castle (the town) until he was terminated in 2007. During his employment, Chiara, who is not Jewish but has a Jewish spouse, complained that a co-worker was making offensive statements about the Jewish religion, including calling Chiara a “Jew lover.”

In 2005, the plaintiff brought an action against the town (also naming the co-worker) alleging discrimination and hostile work environment. He amended the complaint a year later to allege that he had been discriminated against because his wife was Jewish. The amended complaint included additional examples of anti-Jewish remarks made by co-workers. In 2007, the town terminated Chiara's employment for misconduct.

In 2011, the town moved for summary judgment on Chiara's discrimination and hostile work environment claims, arguing that Chiara could not make a prima facie case of discrimination based on religion under the NYHRL because he was not a member of a protected class. The town argued that no authority existed allowing a religious discrimination claim based on the religion of an employee's spouse. In 2012, the Supreme Court granted the town’s motion for summary judgment on the discrimination and hostile work environment claims, and the plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Division.

The Appellate Division:

Acknowledging the lack of authority under the NYHRL for its holding, the Appellate Division relied on Title VII case law, pointing out that the NYHRL and Title VII claims are analyzed in an identical fashion. For example, the court cited Holcomb v. Iona College, a racial discrimination case in which the New York State Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a white man could demonstrate his membership in a protected class under Title VII based on his marriage to an African-American woman (521 F.3d 130, 132 (2d Cir. 2008)).

The Appellate Division’s holding in Chiara expands a plaintiff’s ability to establish his membership in a protected class. Employers covered by the NYHRL should be aware that an employee’s association through marriage (and potentially through other types of relationships) with a member of a protected class could form the basis for a discrimination claim.