… like a rich ex-beauty queen whose views, according to a recent court filing, conflict with federal and state law. Below (and copy here) is the federal court complaint filed by workers last week against fashion designer and former Miss Ecuador Gabriela Cadena, her company, and other defendants for violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards…
Read More Hell Hath No Fury…In Cadet v. Deutsche Bank Securities, 11-cv-7964, 2013 WL 3090690 (SDNY June 18, 2013), decided on June 18, 2013, the Southern District of New York (McMahon, J.) denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff’s race discrimination claims brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. 1981, but dismissed his…
Read More Plaintiff’s Title VII and Section 1981 Race Discrimination Claims Survive in PartThe Second Circuit recently held, in Stansbury v. Wertman, that when evaluating the existence of probable cause in the context of false arrest and malicious prosecution claims, the evidence must be evaluated as a whole, and not item-by-item. In Stansbury, the plaintiff sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging false arrest and malicious prosecution following her acquittal of shoplifting charges. Defendant…
Read More Second Circuit: When Evaluating Probable Cause in the Context of New York False Arrest and Malicious Prosecution Claims, All Circumstances Must Be ConsideredThe New York Supreme Court (New York County) addressed, in OTG Management, LLC v. Konstantinidis, the propriety of injunctive relief in the restrictive covenant context. The court upheld an employment agreement’s non-solicitation, but not non-competition, provisions. In this case, plaintiff OTG hired Mr. Konstantinidis to be an operations manager for its food and beverage services in…
Read More Court Enforces Non-Solicitation, But Not Non-Competition, Employment Contract ProvisionsIn Kowalski v. St. Francis Hospital and Health Centers et al., 2013 NY Slip Op 04756, 21 NY3d 480 (N.Y. Ct. App. June 26, 2013), the Court of Appeals considered what, if any, duty a hospital owes to a drunk patient who decides, on his own, to leave. While the health benefits of being drunk…
Read More Drunk Patient Loses Lawsuit Against HospitalYesterday in Barenboim v. Starbucks, the New York Court of Appeals (responding to the Second Circuit’s certified questions) interpreted New York Labor Law § 196-d. That statute provides: No employer or his agent or an officer or agent of any corporation, or any other person shall demand or accept, directly or indirectly, any part of the gratuities,…
Read More NY Court of Appeals Interprets New York Tip Statute as it Applies to Starbucks EmployeesBelow is today’s Supreme Court decision in U.S . v. Windsor, which holds section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. That section, codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7, provides: In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of…
Read More SCOTUS Strikes Down DOMA Section 3: U.S. v. WindsorYes, you read that right. The Court of Appeals recently indicated, in Hastings v. Sauve, an intention to chip away at the “vicious propensity” rule that has traditionally been applied to lawsuits arising from animal-related injuries. While driving on Route 53 in the Town of Bangor in Franklin County, Karen Hastings hit a cow with her…
Read More NY Court of Appeals: Plaintiffs May Proceed On Negligence Theory To Seek Damages For Injuries Caused By Wandering LivestockToday the U.S. Supreme Court held, in Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, that retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must meet the more rigorous “but for” standard of causation applied under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The Court, focusing on the text, history, and structure…
Read More U.S. Supreme Court Raises Causation Standard For Title VII Retaliation ClaimsToday the U.S. Supreme Court decided, in Vance v. Ball State University, which employees are “supervisors” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I previously wrote about the case here. Whether the alleged discriminator/harasser is the plaintiff’s “supervisor” or “co-worker” is critical: Under Title VII, an employer’s liability for ……
Read More U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Who Is A Title VII “Supervisor”