The court properly granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' claim that they were discriminated against during their tenure with defendant bank because they were local residents hired here, rather than Pakistani-based employees, and thus, because they were American, rather than Pakistani, citizens. There is no legally cognizable discrimination cause of action based on citizenship (see,Espinoza et Vir v. Farah Mfg. Co., Inc., 414 U.S. 86;Cheung v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith, Inc., 913 F. Supp. 248, 252). As to this claim, plaintiffs, therefore, failed to establish that they were members of the class protected by Executive Law § 296 Exec.(1)(a) (see, id.).
With regard to plaintiffs' claim that they were terminated because they were Sunni, rather than Shiite Moslems, plaintiffs established that they were members of a statutorily protected class. Defendant bank, however, by showing that plaintiffs' terminations were part of an economically motivated reduction-in-force, sufficiently provided nondiscriminatory reasons for these terminations (see, O'Sullivan v. The New York Times, 37 F. Supp.2d 307; Matter of Shiseido Cosmetics (Am.), Ltd. v. State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 72 A.D.2d 711, affd 52 N.Y.2d 916). We note that all three members of defendant's panel which recommended the terminations were themselves Sunni Moslems.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.