April 2012

by

In a Southern District of New York complaint, captioned Earl E. Brown v. AIG Investments and John P. Hornbostel, SDNY 12-cv-3243 (4/25/2012), plaintiff, an attorney, alleges claims of race discrimination and retaliation against AIG Global Asset Management Holdings Corp. and managing director John Hornbostel. Among other things, plaintiff asserts that Hornbostel made disparaging comments about African Americans,…

Read More Hey Hey Hey! “Fat Albert” & Other Comments Give Rise to Race Discrimination Lawsuit
Share This:
by

Today the EEOC issued its Enforcement Guidance on the consideration of arrest and conviction records in employment decisions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Unlike New York law, federal law does not specifically prohibit discrimination based on arrest or conviction records.  However, federal law does prohibit discrimination on the basis of…

Read More EEOC Issues Guidance on Employers’ Use of Arrest and Conviction Records Under Title VII
Share This:
by

The EEOC recently issued a final rule amending the regulation (29 C.F.R. § 1625.7) governing the “reasonable factor other than age” (RFOA) defense in “disparate impact” cases brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. The defense only applies in “disparate impact” cases and – in line with Supreme Court precedent – not…

Read More EEOC Issues Final Rule on the “Reasonable Factor Other Than Age” Defense to Disparate Impact Age Discrimination Claims Brought Under The ADEA
Share This:
by

The New York Supreme Court decided, in Clark v. Allen & Overy LLP, that plaintiff Deidre Holmes Clark may continue to litigate, in New York, her claims arising from alleged harassment in defendant law firm Allen & Overy’s Moscow office. Executive Law §298-a[1] provides that the New York State Human Rights Law applies “to an…

Read More Plaintiff May Continue Claims in NY Arising From Harassment in Russia
Share This:
by

In a decision issued on March 29, 2012, the Appellate Division, First Department, held in Ortega v. City of New York that, in a Labor Law § 240(1) case – here, arising from plaintiff’s use of a “tremie rack” (example pictured) – “a plaintiff is not required to demonstrate that the injury was foreseeable, except…

Read More Labor Law § 240(1) Does Not Require Plaintiff To Show That His Injury Was Foreseeable Except In Case Involving the Collapse of a Permanent Structure
Share This: