Employment Discrimination

by

In Cruz v. G-Star Inc. et al, 17-CV-7685, 2019 WL 2521299 (S.D.N.Y. June 19, 2019), an employment discrimination case involving (inter alia) allegations of sexual harassment, the court imposed sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) on defendants for engaging in spoliation of evidence (electronically-stored information, or ESI). From the decision: Here, the circumstances…

Read More Court Imposes Spoliation Sanctions in Sexual Harassment Case
Share This:
by

In Osuan v. City of New York et al, 2019 WL 2544866, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. June 20, 2019), the court, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim of retaliation under 42 U.S.C. 1981. From the decision: Here, Osuan lodged a complaint with human resources about Martin’s behavior and was terminated without explanation only…

Read More Section 1981 Retaliation Claim Sufficiently Alleged; Termination Two Weeks After HR Complaint Plausibly Indicated Causation
Share This:
by

On Wednesday, June 19, 2019, the New York State Legislature passed changes to state law regarding employment discrimination in general and sexual harassment in particular. In sum, the law (A8421 / S6577; version showing deletions/additions here), among other things: Provides increased protections for protected classes and special protections for employees who have been sexually harassed;…

Read More Legislature Passes Sweeping Amendments to NYS Human Rights Law
Share This:
by

In Reilly v. First Niagara Bank, N.A., 2019 NY Slip Op 04974 (App. Div. 2nd Dept. June 19, 2019), the court affirmed the dismissal – for failure to state a claim under CPLR 3211(a)(7) – of plaintiff’s sex-based discrimination and hostile work environment claims under the New York State Human Rights Law, Executive Law §…

Read More Sex Discrimination, Hostile Work Environment Dismissal Affirmed
Share This:
by

In Olivier v. County of Rockland et al, No. 15-CV-8337 (KMK), 2019 WL 2502349 (SDNY June 17, 2019), the court held that plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to overcome defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The court explained the legal standard applicable to the third (“pretext”) step of the three-step burden-shifting framework applicable to Title VII retaliation…

Read More Retaliation Claim Survives Summary Judgment; Court Cites (e.g.) Weaknesses and Inconsistencies in Defendants’ Proffered Non-Retaliatory Reasons
Share This:
by

A recent decision, Rodriguez v. Gikher, 2019 WL 2433596, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 11, 2019), provides an outline of the elements of a disability discrimination claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as well as what must be alleged to properly plead such a claim. The court explains: The ADA prohibits discrimination against a…

Read More “Barebones” ADA Disability Discrimination Complaint
Share This:
by

In Desouza v. Office of Children and Family Services, 2019 WL 2477796 (E.D.N.Y. June 12, 2019), the court clarified differences between/among the various theories available to a plaintiff in a gender discrimination/sexual harassment case. It explained (paragraphing altered): Though claims challenging disparate treatment, quid pro quo sexual harassment, and hostile work environment are all claims of…

Read More Court Clarifies Difference Between “Hostile Work Environment” and “Disparate Treatment” Gender Discrimination Claims; Absence of “Adverse Employment Action” Results in Dismissal
Share This:
by

The noose is one of the most stark symbols of racism, conjuring up the ugly specter of one of the darkest (and, apparently, continuing) chapters of American history. In a recently-filed lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, captioned Curtis Anthony v. The Boeing Company, 2:19-cv-01656-DCN-BM, the plaintiff alleges, among…

Read More Race Discrimination Lawsuit Against Boeing Includes Allegation Involving Noose
Share This:
by

In Vuono v. Consolidated Edison of New York, Inc., 2019 WL 2433654 (S.D.N.Y. 2019), the court, inter alia, dismissed plaintiff’s disability discrimination claim, finding that allegedly “excessive” drug and alcohol tests did not qualify as adverse employment actions. From the decision: Requiring an employee to be tested pursuant to the On Call program does not…

Read More Drug Testing Was Not an “Adverse Employment Action”, Court Holds
Share This:
by

From MARIOS PANAYIOTOU, Plaintiff, v. N.Y.C. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendant., 2019 WL 2453438, at *5 (E.D.N.Y., 2019): As to the alleged national origin- and age-based animus, the incidents as described are not severe or pervasive enough to support a hostile work environment claim. Again, the plaintiff cites the principal’s instruction to “speak clearly” – an…

Read More National Origin- and Age-Based Hostile Work Environment Claims Dismissed
Share This: