Idrobo v. Microsoft Corp.: Race Discrimination Claims Proceed Under NYCHRL

Background of the Lawsuit

In Idrobo v. Microsoft, Louis Idrobo filed suit against Microsoft Corporation in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Louis Idrobo, who identified himself as a Latino man, had been employed by Securitas, a security company whose clients included Microsoft.

Louis Idrobo initially filed claims against Microsoft and several media companies alleging violations of federal and state law. In a prior decision, the court dismissed those claims. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the New York City Human Rights Law claims against Microsoft because the earlier pleadings invoked only federal question jurisdiction. The court granted Louis Idrobo leave to replead his claims against Microsoft alone.

Louis Idrobo then filed a Second Amended Complaint invoking diversity jurisdiction and asserting claims under the New York City Human Rights Law and the False Claims Act.

Factual Allegations

According to the Second Amended Complaint, Louis Idrobo worked as a contractor at Microsoft’s Fifth Avenue Experience Center through his employment with Securitas. He alleged that in 2020 Microsoft publicly committed to doubling the number of Black and African American managers, senior individual contributors, and senior leaders in its United States workforce by 2025.

Louis Idrobo alleged that he applied for business sales specialist and customer advisor positions at Microsoft in June or July 2020 and again for a customer advisor position between May and July 2021. He alleged that he did not receive an interview for those roles.

He further alleged that in April 2021 he overheard a senior Microsoft manager, identified as Kofi O., make statements regarding hiring practices in the context of race. In September 2021, when he asked about his job application, he alleged that Kofi O. made additional comments referencing Microsoft’s diversity initiative.

Louis Idrobo alleged that after he complained that the hiring practices were discriminatory, he was transferred two months later to what he described as a less desirable location and that his total compensation decreased from approximately $115,000 to approximately $70,000. Although formally employed by Securitas, he alleged that Microsoft had decision-making authority over his transfer.

Legal Standards Applied by the Court

Microsoft moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). The court explained that to survive such a motion, a complaint must allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for relief. The court noted that because Louis Idrobo proceeded without counsel, his pleadings were construed liberally.

The court addressed the claims under the False Claims Act first. It stated that a pro se litigant may not bring claims under the False Claims Act. On that basis, the court dismissed the False Claims Act claims.

The court then turned to the New York City Human Rights Law claims for discrimination and retaliation.

Discrimination Claim Under the NYCHRL

The court analyzed the race discrimination claim under the burden-shifting framework applied to claims under the New York City Human Rights Law. At the motion-to-dismiss stage, the court considered whether Louis Idrobo had alleged facts supporting a prima facie case of discrimination.

Microsoft contended that Louis Idrobo failed to allege that he applied for specific positions or that any failure to hire occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. The court determined that he identified the business sales specialist and customer advisor roles and specified approximate timeframes for his applications.

The court concluded that allegations of statements attributed to Kofi O. in connection with hiring decisions were sufficient at the pleading stage to support an inference of discriminatory motivation. The court determined that, taking the allegations as true, the discrimination claim under the New York City Human Rights Law survived the motion to dismiss.

Retaliation Claim Under the NYCHRL

The court also analyzed the retaliation claim under the New York City Human Rights Law. To state a prima facie retaliation claim, a plaintiff must allege protected activity, employer awareness, an action reasonably likely to deter protected activity, and a causal connection between the two.

The court concluded that Louis Idrobo alleged that he complained to Kofi O. about discriminatory hiring practices. The court determined that his alleged transfer to a less favorable position within approximately two months of his complaints was sufficient to support a plausible inference of causation at the pleading stage.

The court also addressed Microsoft’s argument that Louis Idrobo was employed by Securitas rather than Microsoft. The court explained that under the joint employer doctrine, an entity that exercises sufficient control over a worker’s employment may face liability. At the pleading stage, the court concluded that the allegations were sufficient to allow the retaliation claim to proceed.

The Court’s Ruling

On December 16, 2025, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Microsoft’s motion to dismiss with respect to the False Claims Act claims and denied the motion with respect to the discrimination and retaliation claims under the New York City Human Rights Law.

Labor and Employment Legal Services

If you are facing allegations involving workplace discrimination, retaliation, or joint employer liability, Whitcomb contact us to discuss your situation with our team.