Author: mjpospis

by

In Rybnik v. MW 303 Corp., 2018 WL 2046571 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty., Index No. 158679/16, April 27, 2018), the court held that the plaintiff may amend her sexual harassment complaint. Here is the legal standard, as explained by the court: Leave to amend pleadings pursuant to CPLR §3025(b) should be freely given “absent prejudice…

Read More Sexual Harassment Plaintiff May Amend Her Complaint, Court Rules [Rybnik v. MW 303 Corp.]
Share This:
by

In Mejia v. T.N. 888 Eighth Ave. LLC Co., 2018 WL 1988855 (NY Sup. Ct. NY Cty., Index No. 150228/2014), the court held that plaintiff sufficiently alleged retaliation under New York Labor Law 215. In his thorough and well-reasoned opinion, New York Supreme Court Justice Robert Kalish wrote, inter alia: Plaintiff then alleged that, in retaliation…

Read More Plaintiff States Retaliation Claim Under NY Labor Law 215 [Meija v. T.N. 888 Eighth Ave LLC]
Share This:
by

In Duplan v. City of New York, 2018 WL 1996613 (2d Cir. April 30, 2018), the U.S. Court of Appeals held, inter alia, that plaintiff – a gay black Haitian man – sufficiently alleged retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court initially held that plaintiff, a New York City…

Read More Title VII Retaliation Claim Survives Dismissal [Duplan v. City of New York]
Share This:
by

A federal (EDNY / Brooklyn) jury recently awarded several employees a collective $5.1 million in damages against a health insurance company that, the plaintiffs claimed, forced them to follow the practices of an obscure religion called “Onionhead.” (I wrote about the lawsuit’s filing here.) The verdict sheet (below) reflects, inter alia, that the jury awarded…

Read More EDNY Jury Awards $5.1M in “Onionhead” Religious Discrimination Case [EEOC v. United Health Programs of America]
Share This:
by

In A.B. v. Hofstra University, 17-cv-5562, 2018 WL 1935986 (E.D.N.Y., April 24, 2018), an employment discrimination/sexual harassment case, the court considered, and rejected, plaintiff’s request to proceed pseudonymously. The court provides us with an overview of the governing legal standard: Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a) provides that the “title of [a] complaint must name all…

Read More Employment Discrimination Plaintiff May Not Proceed Pseudonymously, Court Holds [A.B. v. Hofstra University]
Share This:
by

In HUA LIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Defendant-Appellee., 2018 WL 1940394, at *2 (C.A.2 (N.Y.), 2018) (Summary Order), the court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s Title VII retaliation claim. In resisting dismissal, plaintiff argued, inter alia, that the employer’s explanation for its failure to hire her shifted, justifying a finding of “but…

Read More Retaliation Claim Properly Dismissed, Despite Alleged Inconsistent Explanation [Lin v. NYS Dept. of Labor]
Share This:
by

In Valentine v. Brain & Spine Surgeons of New York, P.C., 17-cv-2275, 2018 WL 1871175 (S.D.N.Y. April 16, 2018), the court denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s failure-to-accommodate claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Plaintiff alleged, in sum, that defendant violated the ADA by firing her several days after she returned…

Read More Failure to Accommodate Disability Claim Survives Dismissal [Valentine v. Brain & Spine Surgeons of New York, P.C.]
Share This:
by

In Hughes v. Twenty–First Century Fox, Inc., 17-cv-7093, 2018 WL 1936096 (S.D.N.Y. April 24, 2018),  a sexual harassment case, the court quashed defendants’ non-party subpoenas. From the decision: This Court need not consider Defendants’ argument that the subpoenaed information will assist them in formulating the defense of absolute truth with respect to Hughes’ defamation claims because…

Read More Court Quashes Non-Party Subpoenas in Sexual Harassment Case [Hughes v. Twenty-First Century Fox]
Share This:
by

In Ko v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 17-2743, 2018 WL 1830460 (2d Cir. April 17, 2018) (Summary Order), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 as untimely.…

Read More Employment Discrimination Complaint Properly Dismissed as Time-Barred; July 4th Holiday Did Not Warrant Equitable Tolling [Ko v. JP Morgan Chase]
Share This: