The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63 were read on this motion to/for REARGUMENT/RECONSIDERATION. AMENDED DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Plaintiff Jeffrey Eustache commenced this action against defendants the New York City Board of Education and Sharon Lafia in April 2019, asserting causes of action under New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws (respectively, “NYSHRL” and “NYCHRL”) for gender and racial discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation. In motion sequence 002, the Court granted the City Board of Education’s motion to dismiss each of plaintiff’s claims that were based on direct liability, including for sexual discrimination and retaliation, but denied the motion as to the Board’s vicarious liability. In motion sequence 003 (which the Court consolidated with mot. seq. 002), the Court granted Lafia’s motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. Now, in motion sequence 004, plaintiff moves under CPLR 2221 (d) for leave to reargue the above motions; alternatively, failing there, plaintiff moves under CPLR 3025 to amend the First Amended Complaint. For the following reasons, plaintiff’s motion under CPLR 2221 is granted to the extent that the Court erred in dismissing plaintiff’s retaliation cause of action against both defendants. BACKGROUND1 In 2017, plaintiff was employed by the New York City Board of Education (otherwise known as the New York City Department of Education, or “DOE”) as a teaching assistant or paraprofessional assigned to Middle School 171, Abraham Lincoln Intermediate School. Plaintiff specialized in working with students with special needs, including those with physical, intellectual, and emotional disabilities. From late 2017 through May 2018, Lafia — a teacher at the middle school — allegedly made repeated unwanted sexual advances toward plaintiff. These advances included, but were not limited to, calls and text messages to plaintiff wherein Lafia wrote “You hung up on us, or were you hiding under a pillow to speak to us” (NYSCEF doc. no. 12 at 12, amended complaint), “OMG. We are hot. U got nervous and distracted. We love u. We are hot white girls. You can’t handle us” (id. at 25), “We can have sex too” in response to the school’s principal, Indira Mota, assigning plaintiff to work in Lafia’s classroom, and referring to plaintiff as “my black lover” (id. at 26). According to the amended complaint, Lafia made physical advances as well, including an attempt to sit on plaintiff’s lap in the classroom (id. at 43) and repeatedly rubbing his shoulders in a sexual manner (id. at 97). On May 10, 2018, plaintiff reported Lafia’s conduct to Principal Mota, who allegedly did not credit his accusations but did inform him he could file a claim with the Department of Education’s Office of Equal Employment. (Id. at 103.) Plaintiff filed an OEO claim (the “OEO Claim”) against Lafia that same day. The next morning, Principal Mota informed plaintiff that he would be working that day in “In-House Suspension” room. (Id. at 108). Shortly thereafter, Principal Mota informed plaintiff that he was being suspended without pay pending an “investigation.” (Id. at 109.) When plaintiff contacted the DOE’s Human Resources department regarding the nature and reason for his suspension, the HR associate, Christopher Rodriguez, explained that he had no idea why but that he would find out. (Id. at 111.) According to the amended complaint, plaintiff was not informed of the reason for his suspension until May 21, 2018, when Assistant Principal Kristen Conlon and Union Representative Mercedes Perez explained that he had been suspended for looking at a picture of a woman in a bathing suit on Instagram in the classroom and in front of students back on May 8. (Id. at 119.) Plaintiff denied the incident occurred, explaining that he was on a field trip with students that day so he was not in the classroom and that his phone has a privacy protector installed that prevents others from seeing the content of the phone. (Id. at 120-121.) Moreover, Conlon allegedly stated at this time “in [her] twenty years of being an assistant principal, [she had] never seen someone be suspended without pay for something that had nothing to do with endangering a child, or an arrest.” (Id. at 122.) Through September 2018, plaintiff remained suspended while Lafia continued to work for the DOE. According to plaintiff, neither the DOE nor Mota provided him with information about the investigation or whether the suspension would carry on to the next school year. (Id. at
