The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 were read on this motion to/for DISMISS. DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION In this employment action to recover damages for alleged sexual harassment and retaliation, among other claims, defendants move for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 on plaintiff Keith Wright’s causes of action brought under the New York State and the New York City Human Rights Law. Plaintiff opposes the motion. FACTS Plaintiff met Qianshan Liao and his daughter, Ruoming Liao (collectively, “the Liaos”), at an event that plaintiff hosted on May 12, 2016. The purpose of the event was for plaintiff to find investors for a forthcoming film project. Qianshan Liao (“Mr. Liao”) was an investor and the founding and controlling owner of GTM International, GTM Pictures, and Beach Pictures. Mr. Liao was interested in investing in the creation of a motion picture. Plaintiff and Mr. Liao expressed an interest in working together in producing motion pictures and agreed to explore producing films together. According to plaintiff, in August 2016, both Mr. Liao and Ruoming Liao (“Ruoming”) asked plaintiff to create a business plan for a film production business that they could pursue together (NYSCEF # 1, Compl at 16). According to plaintiff, the goal was to produce films in the United States that could also be purposed for the China market (id.). Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Liao offered to commit $10 million toward the business to finance the production of three feature films (id.). Plaintiff thereafter presented his business plan to the Liaos, and the parties agreed to work together to build the business that would be known as GTM Pictures (id. at 18). Plaintiff alleges that during his employment at GTM Pictures, he would report to Mr. Liao, as the owner of the GTM Pictures, and to Ruoming Liao, as the president of GTM Pictures (id.). As to plaintiff’s compensation, the parties agreed that instead of a salary, plaintiff would receive a percentage of GTM’s profits and an equity interest in the business (id. at 20). Plaintiff began to execute the business plan he developed for the Liaos. Plaintiff claims to have performed a number of services for GTM Pictures under the direction and approval of the Liaos, including branding, helping select computer equipment and infrastructure, and attending marketing related events (id. at 21). On September 20, 2016, under the direction of Mr. Liao, plaintiff entered into negotiations with a production company named QC Entertainment for the purpose of investing into the creation of a film entitled Time Freak. Prior to the finalization of the deal to invest in the film, Mr. Liao decided to use Beach Pictures instead of GTM Pictures to finance the film. On February 17, 2017, plaintiff and Beach Pictures entered into an “Executive Producer Agreement” (“Agreement”) with respect to plaintiff’s services in connection with Time Freak (NYSCEF # 29). According to the Agreement, plaintiff was to “render all services that are customarily rendered by producers of first-class feature-length motion pictures in the theatrical motion picture industry” (id. at 1). The Agreement further states that all of plaintiff’s “services hereunder shall be rendered in accordance with the reasonable directions, requests, current rules and regulations of Company in connection therewith, including without limitation, those involving matters of artistic taste and/or judgment” (id). In exchange, plaintiff was entitled to 15 percent of all money paid to Beach Pictures after recoupment of its initial investment (id. at 2). Plaintiff claims that both the work he performed as an Executive Producer for Time Freak, and the work he performed during his employment with GTM Pictures, which were unrelated to the film, was performed under the direction and approval of the Liaos. Plaintiff claims that a few months after he and the Liaos agreed to work together, Ruoming began to harass plaintiff (id. at
