Author: mjpospis

by

On August 23, 2011, plaintiff Westley Artope sued ex-model Paige Bluhdorn (and Paul Bluhdorn), alleging that after he rejected Paige’s sexual advances,  he was subjected to a hostile work environment and ultimately fired.  He also alleged federal and state wage/hour violations.  His federal court complaint: [scribd id=64113286 key=key-1eume2eq9ki2s0otlnac mode=list]

Read More Dog trainer sues ex-model for sex-based discrimination and wage/hour violations
Share This:
by

In Briggs v. Women in Need, Inc, 819 F.Supp.2d 119 (2011), the court denied defendant’s FRCP 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint alleging discrimination under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) by her nonprofit employer. The Facts Plaintiff advised her employer of her pregnancy in March 2007, went on medical leave due to her high-risk pregnancy…

Read More Plaintiff May Press Pregnancy Discrimination Claims Against Non-Profit Women in Need Inc.
Share This:
by

On August 30, 2011, Mayor Bloomberg signed into law amendments to the New York City Human Rights Law (specifically, to sections 8-102(18) and 8-107(3)(b) of the New York City Administrative Code) which effectively make it more difficult for an employer to refuse to accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs on the ground that the requested accommodation…

Read More Amendments to NYC Human Rights Law Provide Enhanced Protections Against Religious Discrimination in Employment
Share This:
by

On August 30, 2011, the National Labor Relations Board issued a final rule, entitled “Notification of Employee Rights Under the National Labor Relations Act“.  In sum, the final rule (which takes effect on November 14, 2011) requires employers to notify their employees of the employees’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act by posting a notice, establishes the…

Read More NLRB Issues Final Rule Regarding Employee Rights Under the NLRA
Share This:
by

In Rashada v. New York Post et al (NY Sup. August 11, 2011), 2011 Slip Op. 32234(U), Judge Scarpulla dismissed plaintiff’s defamation action against the New York Post and the author of an article allegedly suggesting that plaintiff – one of several imams at a mosque and a Department of Corrections employee – had “radicalized”…

Read More NY trial court dismisses defamation action – statements constituted opinion, not fact
Share This:
by

In EEOC v. Dresser Rand Co., 04-CV-6300 (W.D.N.Y. August 10, 2011), a New York federal court rejected the defendant’s argument that an employment discrimination plaintiff’s decision not to pursue additional training at a local community college resulted in a failure to mitigate his damages. Plaintiff, a Jehovah’s Witness, sued his employer alleging religious discrimination in violation…

Read More Mitigation under Title VII does not require re-education
Share This:
by

In Ahmad v. Bivomi M. Alshorbagi and Jacal Hacking Corp. (N.Y. Sup. July 22, 2011), the court considered, and rejected, defendant’s CPLR 4404 motion for various elements of post-trial relief following a jury’s damage award.  Plaintiff sued defendants, the driver and owner of a taxi that struck him at LaGuardia Airport.  A trial judge granted…

Read More NY Supreme Court rejects defendants’ motion to set aside jury damages award
Share This:
by

In law school, a professor once conveyed to our Torts class a four-word phrase that can fairly be said to embody the teachings of thousands of judicial opinions over hundreds of years:  “No evidence, no win.”  Southern District of New York Judge Loretta Preska echoed that sentiment – albeit in slightly different form (“’J’accuse!’ is not enough in…

Read More SDNY: summary judgment for Bloomberg L.P. on plaintiffs’ “pattern or practice” pregnancy discrimination claim
Share This:
by

An Appellate Division, First Dept. panel recently upheld the trial court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s claims alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 191 and 193.  The offer letter that granted plaintiff an entitlement to be paid commissions also provided that the commission rates were those “reasonably expected to be paid” and “may be modified at any time”…

Read More Commission Reduction Permissible Where Expressly Authorized by Agreement
Share This: