On March 19, 2025, the New York Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Harris v. City of New York, a suit challenging discrimination based on weight under the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”). The Court denied the City’s motion to dismiss Ms. Harris’s suit in one of the first judicial interpretations of the 2023 NYCHRL amendments adding height and weight to the list of characteristics protected against discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations. See Local Law 61 of 2023.
Background of the Harris New York Weight Discrimination Case
Angela Harris alleged she was denied employment as a probation officer solely because of her weight. After she passed the civil service exam to become a probation officer in 2022, the NYPD invited Ms. Harris to undergo a medical evaluation in May 2024. According to her amended complaint, at that evaluation she was told to “leave and only return after losing 95 LBS” and was handed a pre-printed form titled “NYPD Notice of Medical Review Status PD 407-123” requiring her to be reweighed after weight loss. The form also noted her current weight.
Ms. Harris filed a case alleging discrimination based on her weight on July 8, 2024. The NYPD contacted Ms. Harris on July 19, 2024, and directed her to appear at the Candidate Assessment Division (“CAD”) on August 2. Among other things, the CAD administers a physical fitness assessment for candidates for law enforcement positions. Ms. Harris’s attorney replied on July 24, informing the NYPD that Ms. Harris had filed her weight discrimination case and requesting the appointment be rescheduled given the pending litigation. Neither the Department of Probation nor the NYPD communicated with Ms. Harris after that.
The City moved to dismiss the case, claiming that Ms. Harris failed to plead facts showing she was qualified for the position of probation officer, that she was treated less well because of her weight, or that discrimination was a motivating factor in the decision not to select her for the position. The City also characterized the directive to lose weight as a “medical determination.”
Court Finds for Harris, Citing Language and Intent of Weight Discrimination Prohibition
Justice Hasa A. Kingo denied the NYPD’s motion to dismiss, holding that Harris stated viable claims of discrimination and retaliation under the NYCHRL and granting her cross-motion to amend her complaint.
Crucially, the Court highlighted the liberal pleading standards that apply under the NYCHRL that require only fair notice of the nature of the claim. The Court concluded that Ms. Harris had adequately pleaded discrimination by alleging she was directed to lose a set amount of weight as a condition of further consideration and was not hired, even as others who passed the same exam were sworn in. The Court considered the directive to “leave and only return after losing 95 pounds” alongside a form recording Ms. Harris’ current weight and instructing her to be reweighed after losing a certain number of pounds sufficient to raise an inference of discrimination. The Court noted that there are certain exceptions where an individual’s weight may be considered when making employment-related decisions but that in this case, the City failed to identify any law or regulation that required such a policy or justified it under the NYCHRL’s narrow exceptions for when weight may be considered in employment decisions.
The Court was not persuaded by the City’s argument that the form was a medical determination. The form did not contain any statements about a medical diagnosis, and the City itself repeatedly referred to Ms. Harris as “overweight” without connecting that label to any individualized assessment of her fitness for the job. The Court quoted the NYC Commission on Human Rights, stating that “[s]tereotypes or speculative health and safety concerns regarding body size stem from entrenched bias and do not constitute permissible justifications for height or weight discrimination.” The Court emphasized that the statute proscribes discrimination on the basis of “actual or perceived weight” and “targets entrenched biases about a person’s capacity because of their weight.”
Court Also Allows Retaliation Claim to Proceed
The Court also allowed the retaliation claim to proceed. Under the NYCHRL, a plaintiff must show: (1) that she engaged in protected activity, (2) the employer was aware of such activity, (3) the employer took action that is reasonably likely to deter a person from engaging in a protected activity, and (4) that there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the employer’s action. Harris alleged that after her attorney informed the NYPD of her pending lawsuit for unlawful weight discrimination, all communication ceased, and her August appointment with the NYPD was not rescheduled. The Court found that these facts sufficiently alleged a causal connection between the lawsuit—a protected activity—and the City’s failure to continue her candidacy.
What This Weight Discrimination Ruling Means for Employers and Employees
This decision sends a clear message to employers: weight-based employment decisions cannot rest on outdated stereotypes or arbitrary policies without legal justification. With the NYCHRL’s explicit protections for height and weight now in effect, employers who rely on blanket weight thresholds without individualized analysis risk violating the law.
Harris v. City of New York is not just about one applicant—it is about how weight bias operates in institutional settings and how the law can be used to challenge it. As one of the first decisions to apply the City’s new protections, it sets an important precedent for future cases and underscores the NYCHRL’s commitment to rooting out all forms of discrimination—including those based on body size.