In Irons v. The City of New York, 16-cv-3708, 2019 WL 3752870 (EDNY Aug. 8, 2019), the court, inter alia,[1]As with many blog posts, here I have addressed only a subset of this lengthy and detailed decision; the reader is encouraged to review the decision in its entirety. denied defendant City’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s employment discrimination claims.
From the decision:
[Plaintiff] has provided sufficient evidence showing that Almonte treated similarly situated individuals differently. First, Almonte testified at his deposition that Aaronson, a white man, was discourteous to his female supervisor in front of the entire platoon; however, he testified that he chose not to issue a CD because he “[does not] like to issue [them].” Almonte Dep. 48. Though the City argues that Aaronson is not similarly situated because he is a police officer while Irons is a sergeant, the Court is not persuaded that police officers are not held to similar standards regarding being discourteous to their supervisors, and that is a question of fact for the jury. Second, Irons testified at her deposition that Olivio, a Hispanic, female police officer, was discourteous to a sergeant in front of a large group of people, including Almonte, but never received any discipline.
Based on this, the court found that plaintiff created an issue of fact as to whether she endured adverse employment actions because of discrimination.
| ↩1 | As with many blog posts, here I have addressed only a subset of this lengthy and detailed decision; the reader is encouraged to review the decision in its entirety. |
|---|