The “Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) is a federal law, codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000ff et seq., that (in a nutshell) “discrimination on the basis of genetic information with respect to health insurance and employment.” In enacting GINA, Congress set forth the following findings: Deciphering the sequence of the human genome and…
Read More The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA)In employment discrimination cases, defendants sometimes argue, in effect, that unlawful discrimination can not have occurred, since the alleged victim and the alleged discriminator/harasser are in the same “protected class.” The law is to the contrary. For example, in Poliard v. Saintilus Day Care Center, Inc., 11-CV-5174, 2013 WL 1346238, at *4 (E.D.N.Y.,2013), the court noted (albeit…
Read More Discrimination Where Discriminator and Victim Are in the Same Protected ClassNew York’s common-law “faithless servant doctrine” provides that “an agent that breaches its fiduciary duty of loyalty to its principal forfeits its right to compensation for the period of its disloyalty.” Supreme Showroom, Inc. v. Branded Apparel Group LLC, 2018 WL 3148357, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. June 27, 2018). As one court explained: New York law…
Read More The “Faithless Servant Doctrine” Under New York LawIf you are a victim of employment discrimination in New York City and are prepared to formally pursue a claim (i.e., proceed beyond pre-filing negotiations), there are several procedural options available to you. These include (but may not be limited to): State Court, Federal Court, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), New York State Division…
Read More Employment Discrimination: Filing OptionsFrequently, plaintiffs in employment discrimination cases will attempt to prove discrimination by reference to comments or remarks that allegedly demonstrate discriminatory intent. For the purpose of evaluating such evidence, courts have developed the “stray remarks” doctrine. The court in Luka v. Bard College, 2017 WL 2839641 (SDNY June 29, 2017) (J. Carter) recently explained: As a…
Read More The “Stray Remarks” Doctrine in Employment Discrimination LawOne of the various types of damages available in an employment discrimination case is so-called “emotional distress” damages, which are a species of “compensatory” damages. Such damages are available under (for example) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and the New York City Human Rights…
Read More Emotional Distress Damages in Employment Discrimination CasesThe term “reasonable accommodation” has a specific meaning in employment law. It arises in the context of disability discrimination, pregnancy discrimination, and religious discrimination. Here I will discuss its meaning in the context of disability discrimination by an employer against an employee or job applicant. The Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.…
Read More What Is a “Reasonable Accommodation” For a “Disability”?One common type of personal injury case involves someone being injured as a result of tripping and falling on someone’s property, resulting in injury. In these so-called “trip-and-fall” cases, courts have developed and applied the “trivial defect” doctrine. The Law In determining whether a defect is “trivial” as a matter of law, the court must…
Read More The “Trivial Defect” Doctrine in Personal Injury Trip-and-Fall Premises Liability CasesOne frequently-occurring personal injury case is the so-called “slip-and-fall” case, which in turn is a species of “premises liability” claims. One court[1]Decker v. Middletown Walmart Supercenter Store, No. 15 CIV. 2886 (JCM), 2017 WL 568761 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2017) recently summarized the law as follows: In New York, [t]o establish a prima facie case of…
Read More Surviving Summary Judgment in a Slip-and-Fall Premises Liability CaseProving employment discrimination is no easy task. Over time, courts have developed an analytical method for evaluating such claims. Proving Employment Discrimination With “Indirect” or “Circumstantial” Evidence When a plaintiff alleges employment discrimination based on indirect, or circumstantial, evidence, courts employ the “burden-shifting” framework set out in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792…
Read More Proving Employment Discrimination