Thank you for visiting the Pospis Law Blog (the “Blog”), maintained by Pospis Law, PLLC (the “Firm”).
The Blog primarily provides general information regarding legal developments in the areas of employment discrimination, sexual harassment, civil rights, and personal injury. This website’s general disclaimer (which is incorporated by reference) likewise applies to the Blog.
1. Not Advice. The Blog is for general informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal or other professional advice.
2. No Involvement/Connection. Inclusion of material in the Blog is not meant to imply or suggest that this Firm is in any way involved with or connected to its subject matter, represents any of the involved parties, etc.
3. No Attorney-Client Relationship. Reading or subscribing to the Blog does not create an attorney-client (or any other kind of) relationship between you and the Firm.
4. No Guarantee of Current Information. The Blog may not reflect the most current state of the law or the most up-to-date information about the subject of a particular post. The law, by its nature, is constantly changing and evolving: courts and other adjudicative bodies issue new case law on a regular basis; judicial opinions may be reversed or vacated; new developments arise as cases proceed through litigation; and legislation may be added, repealed, amended, etc. in a way that may substantially change prior law.
5. Portions of Material. When discussing a case, lawsuit, statute, etc., we might (and in many cases will) discuss only certain parts/aspects of it.
6. Editing. We routinely make non-substantive editorial modifications – e.g., deleting internal quotation marks and citations, modifying formatting/paragraphing, etc. – without a corresponding notation in order to enhance/facilitate readability.
7. No Reliance. The Blog is not a substitute for formal legal research or the advice of an attorney licensed in your State. Always consult full, original source material, in lieu of information provided on the Blog, before using it for any purpose.
If you have any questions about anything on the Blog, including suggestions, please feel free to contact us!
Thank you for visiting the Pospis Law Blog (the “Blog”), maintained by Pospis Law, PLLC (the “Firm”). The Blog primarily provides general information regarding legal developments in the areas of employment discrimination, sexual harassment, civil rights, and personal injury. This website’s general disclaimer (which is incorporated by reference) likewise applies to the Blog. 1. Not…
Read More Sticky: About This Blog; DisclaimerIn Moore v. Board of Public Utilities Employees’ Club, Inc., 2025 WL 1000733 (D.Kan. April 3, 2025), the court, inter alia, dismissed plaintiff’s age discrimination claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), because plaintiff did not “administratively exhaust” that claim at the EEOC. From the decision: Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s ADEA claims…
Read More ADEA Age Discrimination Claim Dismissed as Not Administratively Exhausted at the EEOCIn Holloway v. Tully Construction Co. Inc., No. 157573/2021, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 50739(U), 2025 WL 1364359 (Sup Ct, May 07, 2025), the court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s gender discrimination claim asserted under the New York City Human Rights Law. From the decision: While plaintiff’s first cause of action appears to…
Read More Gender Discrimination Claim, Arising From Unisex Bathroom Issues, Survives Summary JudgmentIn Stashenko, Stephanie v. The State of New York et al, No. 903130-22, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 50616(U), 2025 WL 1228825 (Sup Ct Albany Cty, Apr. 14, 2025), the court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim of gender discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law. After summarizing the black-letter law…
Read More Sex, Familial Status Discrimination Claims Survive Summary Judgment Against NY StateIn Rowe v. Poplar Grove Operations, LLC, 2025 WL 1184061 (E.D.Ark. April 23, 2025), the court, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s race discrimination claim asserted under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This decision illustrates the “administrative exhaustion” requirement of Title VII, and the importance of including all pertinent…
Read More Title VII Race Discrimination Claim Dismissed as Not Administratively ExhaustedIn Sorokina v. The College of New Jersey, No. 24-1365, 2025 WL 1289148 (3d Cir. 2025), the court, inter alia, reversed a lower court’s order granting summary judgment to defendant on plaintiff’s claim of gender discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. From the decision: Sorokina alleges that the College took…
Read More Title VII Gender Discrimination Claim, Arising From Non-Renewal of Contract, Survives Summary JudgmentIn Stouch v. Department of Child Protection and Permanency et al, 2025 WL 1338221 (N.J.Super.A.D., 2025), the court, inter alia, reversed the grant of summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim of sexual harassment under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. From the decision: A hostile work environment claim requires consideration of “the totality of the circumstances.”…
Read More Hostile Work Environment Sexual Harassment Claim Survives Summary Judgment Under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD)In Qamar v. Board of Trustees of Governors State University, 2025 WL 1309843 (N.D.Ill. May 6, 2025), the court, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s national origin-based hostile work environment claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. From the decision: As previewed, to bring this cause of action, the…
Read More National Origin-Based Hostile Work Environment Claim Dismissed; Alleged Harassing Emails Sent at “Odd Hours” InsufficientIn Pinell v. Target Corp., No. 156615/2024, 2025 WL 1296296 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County May 05, 2025), the court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims of race-based public accommodation discrimination under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws. The court summarized the facts, as follows: On September 28, 2023, Plaintiffs,…
Read More Plaintiffs Sufficiently Allege Race-Based Public Accommodation Discrimination Claims, Court HoldsIn Paul v. City of Fort Worth, Civil Action No. 4:24-cv-00913-O, 2025 WL 1287920 (N.D.Tex. May 2, 2025), the court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s hostile work environment sexual harassment claim asserted under Texas law.[1]Note: I am not admitted to practice law in Texas. The court summarized the black-letter law – noting that the…
Read More Hostile Work Environment Sexual Harassment Sufficiently AllegedIn Toney v. Clorox Company, No. 24-2567, 2025 WL 1201881 (9th Circuit April 25, 2025), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, inter alia, reversed an award of summary judgment to defendant on plaintiff’s claim of wrongful termination (discrimination) based on gender. From the decision: In this employment discrimination case, we address the…
Read More 9th Circuit, Citing “Internally Inconsistent” Reasons for Termination, Reverses Summary Judgment on Gender Discrimination Claim