Unpaid Intern is not an Employee, Cannot Maintain Hostile Work Environment Claim
1 min read
Oct 8, 2013
A broadcast and digital journalism student began working at a Chinese-language news station as an unpaid intern. As an intern, she reported directly to the bureau chief, assisted the bureau’s reporters with shooting news footage, drafted scripts, edited videos, and appeared on camera to present certain stories. The intern sought a full-time position and was told that she may be able to obtain a permanent position later if she could obtain a work visa.
The intern claimed that two weeks after she started, the bureau chief propositioned her, but she rejected him. Neither she nor the chief brought up the incident after that, but the intern claimed that the bureau chief no longer expressed interest in hiring her permanently. Her internship ended, but several months later, she contacted him to discuss a permanent position. He allegedly asked her to go away for the weekend with him to discuss, but she declined, fearful that he would proposition her again.
The intern filed suit against the company alleging hostile work environment and failure to hire in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). The company moved to dismiss on the grounds that she lacked standing to pursue the hostile work environment claim given that she was not an employee. This was an issue of first impression for the court.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York thus considered whether an unpaid intern could bring an employment discrimination claim pursuant to the NYCHRL. The court looked to the plain language of the statute and found that it makes clear that the provision’s coverage only extends to employees. This is further confirmed by analogous interpretations of Title VII and the NYSHRL, and a review of the legislative history of the NYCHRL. Thus, the court concluded that the intern could not maintain her hostile work environment claim under the NYCHRL because she was not an employee.
The court did, however, find that the intern alleged sufficient facts in order to pursue her failure to hire claims under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL, and thus, the suit was not dismissed in its entirety.
Featured Insights

Healthcare Alert
Aug 3, 2026
Fixing the Emergency Refill Trap: What California’s AB 1587 Means for Pharmacies

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Jul 30, 2026
Should Text Messages be Considered “Calls” Under the TCPA? The Seventh Circuit Says No

Healthcare Alert
Jul 30, 2026
California Courts Sharply Curtail the MICRA Damages Cap in Nursing Home Litigation

Insights for Insurers Alert
Jul 30, 2026
Analyzing a Couple of Cases Involving Exclusions in D&O Policies

In The News
Jul 29, 2026
Hinshaw Authors Contribute Two Articles in Latest Edition of the CCFL Quarterly Report

Webinar
Jul 28, 2026
Cathy Mulrow-Peattie and Sabrina Janeiro Present on Legal AI Technology

In The News
Jul 27, 2026
Scott Seaman Discusses How the Insurance Industry Contributed to the 2026 FIFA World Cup

Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
Jul 27, 2026
Compliance Guidance for the New Vermont Data Privacy and Online Surveillance Act (VDPOSA)

Healthcare Alert
Jul 24, 2026
Q&A: Right to Electronic Monitoring Extended to Illinois Assisted and Shared Living Facilities

Press Release
Jul 23, 2026
Insurance Partner Christophe Burusco Joins Hinshaw in Los Angeles

In The News
Jul 16, 2026
Jennifer Driscoll Anticipates Epic Battle Between “Titans of the Antitrust Bar”

