2019

by

Starbucks cup beside clear tip box Starbucks cup beside clear tip box

In Hazelwood v. Highland Hospital, 17-4139 (2d Cir. March 1, 2019) (Summary Order), the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s (a deaf woman) claims of failure to accommodate and unlawful retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The court provides some guidance as to what qualifies as an ADA “reasonable accommodation”: A reasonable…

Read More 2d Circuit: Disability Accommodation (Effective, Though Not Preferred) Was ADA-Compliant
Share This:
by

Smiling man in suit with rainbow bow tie Smiling man in suit with rainbow bow tie

The IRS has addressed and clarified an ambiguity in a recently-enacted tax law that relates to deductions of attorney fees in sexual harassment cases, where a nondisclosure agreement is in play. Section 162(q) of the Internal Revenue Code provides: (q) Payments related to sexual harassment and sexual abuse No deduction shall be allowed under this…

Read More IRS Clarifies Ambiguity in New Deduction Section Relating to Confidential Settlements in Sexual Harassment Cases
Share This:
by

Person sprawled on boardwalk above hole Person sprawled on boardwalk above hole

Today, March 3, 2019, marks the 100th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), an important First Amendment case setting the stage for the modern interpretation of the First Amendment. The unanimous Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., upheld the convictions, under…

Read More “Shouting Fire in a Theatre”: Schenck v. United States Turns 100
Share This:
by

Post thumbnail

In Sarmiento v. Ampex Casting Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 30431(U), Index NO. 150294/2011 (Sup. Ct. NY Cty. Feb. 21, 2019), the court (inter alia) denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s gender discrimination and retaliation claims. The court addressed the “central question” of “whether plaintiff has stated an issue of fact in her…

Read More Sexual Harassment Claim Survives Summary Judgment
Share This:
by

Close-up of White House on U.S. currency Close-up of White House on U.S. currency

In Dotson v. City of Syracuse, et al., No. 18‐1020 (2d Cir. Feb. 27, 2019) (Summary Order), the Second Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim of gender discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court’s review/analysis was “limited to the issue whether [plaintiff] Dotson…

Read More Title VII Sex Discrimination Claim Revived
Share This:
by

United States flag with stars and stripes United States flag with stars and stripes

In Akinde v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 01493 (App. Div. 1st Dept. Feb. 28, 2019), the court unanimously affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s discrimination and hostile work environment claims on statute-of-limitations grounds, and of plaintiff’s retaliation claim on the merits. As to the former, the court explained: Plaintiff’s…

Read More Hostile Work Environment Claim Dismissal, on Statute of Limitations Grounds, Affirmed
Share This:
by

Pospis Law PLLC green monogram logo Pospis Law PLLC green monogram logo

In Esposito v. Rail Bar & Grill Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 01198 (App. Div. 2nd Dept. Feb. 20, 2019), the court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s claim under New York General Obligations Law § 11-101, a/k/a the Dram Shop Act. In sum, plaintiff alleged that the defendants served alcohol to the plaintiff’s assailants when…

Read More “Dram Shop Act” Claim Dismissal Affirmed
Share This:
by

Snowy entrance to 8th Street subway station Snowy entrance to 8th Street subway station

In Kleber v. CareFusion Corp., No. 17-1206 (7th Cir. Jan. 23, 2019), the court held that the section of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) prohibiting “disparate impact” discrimination does not apply to job applicants. That section, 4(a)(2), makes it unlawful for an employer to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way…

Read More 7th Circuit: ADEA’s “Disparate Impact” Section Does Not Apply to Job Applicants
Share This:
by

Pospis Law, PLLC logo and address Pospis Law, PLLC logo and address

In a recently-filed complaint – captioned Stover v. Amazon.com, LLC et al, 19-cv-00054 (E.D.Ky Feb. 15, 2019) – the plaintiff alleges that the defendants subjected him to discrimination based on his disability (Chron’s disease). Plaintiff claims, specifically, that defendants terminated him because of “time theft” due to “excessive bathroom breaks” – which, he contends, were…

Read More Disability Discrimination Lawsuit Against Amazon
Share This:
© 2026 Pospis Law, PLLC. All Rights Reserved.