Employment Discrimination

In Peralta v. Roros 940, Inc., 72 F. Supp. 3d 385 (E.D.N.Y. 2014), the Eastern District of New York denied defendants’ summary judgment motion as to plaintiff’s discriminatory termination (based on pregnancy) claim, but granted it as to her pregnancy-based hostile work environment claim. The defendant, a FedEx subcontractor, alleged that plaintiff, a delivery driver, was…

Read More Unequal Treatment of Non-Pregnant Co-Workers Supports Pregnancy Discrimination Claim Against FedEx Subcontractor
Share This:

A recent district court decision, Patrick v. Garlick, No. 13-CV-6365L, 2014 WL 6883634 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2014), explains the differences between federal and state anti-discrimination law  regarding individual liability of the alleged harasser. There, plaintiffs, employees of Seneca Lake State Park, sued Steve Garlick (the park’s branch manager and the plaintiffs’ supervisor), alleging that Garlick subjected them…

Read More Court Explains Individual Liability Under State Human Rights Law
Share This:

Here is the complaint recently filed by plaintiff Michael Douglas against Bleecker Kitchen & Co. and its co-owner (and owner of Gold Bar) Joshua Berkowitz. Plaintiff – who is bi-racial (mixed Black and Asian Asian ancestry) – asserts, among other things, that Berkowitz made derogatory comments about black people, in violation of the New York City…

Read More Race Discrimination/Hostile Work Environment Lawsuit Against Bleecker Kitchen and Owner Joshua Berkowitz
Share This:

In Rivera v. Balter Sales Co. (decided 12/1/14), the Southern District of New York held that plaintiff sufficiently alleged claims for aiding and abetting discriminatory conduct (under the New York State Human Rights Law) and false arrest. What is interesting about this case is that plaintiff sued not only her former employer, but also the…

Read More Fired Plaintiff Sufficiently Alleges “Aiding and Abetting” Claim Arising From Retaliatory Arrest
Share This:

In Bennett v. Time Warner Cable, the Supreme Court, New York County, held that plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded age discrimination claims under both a “disparate treatment” and “disparate impact” theory. Here are the alleged facts, as summarized by the court: Plaintiffs, whose ages range between 51 and 69, are employees of TWC, and until about September…

Read More Plaintiffs Sufficiently Allege “Disparate Treatment” and “Disparate Impact” Age Discrimination Claims Against Time Warner Cable
Share This:

In Juarez v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co., the Southern District of New York held that plaintiff stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1981 for discrimination against aliens without green cards. Section 1981 prohibits both public and private actors from discriminating on the basis of race or alienage in the making and enforcement of contracts,…

Read More Job Applicant Successfully Alleges Alienage Discrimination Based on Policy Targeting Legal Aliens Without Green Cards
Share This:

In Cullen v. Verizon Communications, No. 14-CV-464S, 2014 WL 6627494 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2014), the Western District of New York dismissed, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), plaintiff’s complaint alleging disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (as amended) (ADA) and the New York State Human Rights Law. Here are the facts,…

Read More Recent Court Decision is Instructive as to the Circumstances Under Which Alcoholism Constitutes a “Disability” Under the Anti-Discrimination Statutes
Share This:

Judicial opinions are often difficult to distill into discrete bullet points. However, a recent decision can be taken as a cautionary instruction to male supervisors, for example, not instruct their female subordinates, in writing, to remember that they are “a man first and a supervisor second” and that being “sex[y]” is “crucial to the position”, and…

Read More “Mock” Sexual Harassment Letter From Alleged Harasser Supports Plaintiff’s Case Against School District
Share This:

In Corrado v. New York State Uniform Court System, the Eastern District of New York explained the difference between an “adverse action” for purposes of retaliation and an “adverse action” for purposes of discrimination based on a protected class (so-called disparate treatment). Specifically: To show a prima facie case of retaliation, plaintiff must demonstrate that…

Read More Court Explains Differing Standards for “Adverse Action” Depending on Whether Claim is For Retaliation or Status-Based Employment Discrimination
Share This: