A New York court has upheld a ruling against Engolos LLC, a company operating under the name Plein Sud, for discriminating against an employee based on his national origin. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York confirmed the decision on May 12, 2026, which found that the company and its owner, Ehsan Pishyar, wrongfully terminated Israel Aguilar Perez after he faced derogatory comments and a hostile work environment. This ruling is significant as it reinforces the legal protections against workplace discrimination and highlights the importance of ensuring a safe and respectful work environment for all employees.

The ruling stems from a case initiated by the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR), which filed a petition against Engolos LLC after an investigation into complaints made by Perez. The court's decision emphasizes the need for employers to be held accountable for discriminatory practices and to foster a workplace free from harassment and bias.

Background

The parties involved in this case are the New York State Division of Human Rights, which serves to protect individuals from discrimination, and Engolos LLC, a restaurant business owned by Ehsan Pishyar. The dispute began when Israel Aguilar Perez, a kitchen worker at Engolos, filed a complaint with the DHR, alleging discrimination based on his Mexican national origin. Perez claimed that his supervisor used derogatory terms towards him and created a hostile work environment.

The DHR conducted an investigation and found sufficient evidence to support Perez's claims. They determined that he was qualified for his position and had been subjected to verbal abuse and mistreatment by his supervisor. Following the investigation, the DHR ordered Engolos and Pishyar to pay Perez back wages, compensatory damages, and civil fines. The case was later transferred to the Appellate Division after Engolos LLC appealed the DHR's findings.

The Ruling

The court ruled in favor of the DHR, confirming their findings of discrimination against Perez. The ruling stated that the DHR's conclusions were supported by “sufficient evidence on the record considered as a whole.” The court noted that Perez had established a prima facie case of discrimination, meaning he provided enough evidence to suggest he was treated unfairly because of his national origin.

The opinion highlighted that, after Perez's dispute with his supervisor, Engolos and Pishyar did not provide a legitimate reason for firing him. The court emphasized, “Once a prima facie case is made, the burden of production shifts to the employer to rebut the presumption with evidence that the complainant was discharged for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason.” Engolos and Pishyar failed to do so, resulting in the court's decision to uphold the DHR's order.

Additionally, the court found that Engolos and Pishyar created a hostile work environment. The ruling noted that the supervisor, who was not part of Perez's protected class, directed ethnicity-based slurs at him and even assaulted him during a dispute. The court stated that these actions contributed to a hostile work environment based on Perez's national origin.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for workplace discrimination in New York and potentially beyond. It reinforces the idea that employers must take employee complaints seriously and ensures that they are held accountable for fostering a safe work environment. The decision also serves as a reminder that discriminatory practices will not be tolerated in the workplace.

The court's ruling may encourage other employees who have faced similar discrimination to come forward and seek justice, knowing that there are legal protections in place. It also emphasizes the importance of training and policies within companies to prevent discrimination and to address complaints promptly and effectively.

What's Next

Engolos LLC has the option to appeal this decision to a higher court, though it remains unclear if they will pursue that route. There are no related cases pending that were mentioned in the court's opinion. The outcome of this case may influence future cases involving workplace discrimination, as it sets a clear precedent regarding the responsibilities of employers in handling discrimination complaints.