as to Plaintiffs NYHRL Claims Is Also Denied N.Y. Exec. L. § 296(1) provides in relevant part that: “It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice: (a) For an employer ..., because of the ... race, ... color, ... [or] sex ... of any individual, to refuse to hire or employ or to bar or to discharge from employment such individual or to discriminate against such individual in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.” New York state courts require the same standard of proof for claims brought under NYHRL as those brought under Title VII, so Title VII and NYHRL claims can be analyzed in tandem. Quinn v. Green Tree Credit Corp., 159 F.3d at 765; Arias, 2003 WL 354978, at *7; see also, Perks v. Town of Huntington, 251 F.Supp.2d 1143, 1158-1159 (E.D.N.Y.2003) (<HOLDING>). I thus adopt the above analysis to plaintiffs
holding that there is no individual liability under title vii holding that title vii and nyhrl claims are arbitrable recognizing the same analysis applies under the wlad and title vii recognizing disagreement among district courts in the second circuit as to whether the standard for vicarious liability is the same under title vii and the nyhrl but interpreting second circuit law including quinn to indicate that nyhrl claims should be analyzed under the framework of title vii recognizing that claims arising under the ihra are analyzed under the same standards as title vii claims