Employment Discrimination

by

Yesterday Mayor de Blasio signed legislation designed to protect interns from discrimination, including sexual harassment. The City Council passed the legislation last month, in the wake of a recent federal court decision, Wang v. Phoenix Satellite Television, which held that interns were not employees under, and hence were not entitled to the protections of, the New York City Human…

Read More Mayor de Blasio Signs Legislation Protecting Interns Against Employment Discrimination and Sexual Harassment
Share This:
by

Below is the federal court complaint, captioned Natasha Velez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill et al., 1:14-cv-02625, filed yesterday by plaintiff Natasha Velez against her former employer Chipotle. Plaintiff alleges that she was fired after disclosing that she was a victim of domestic violence and showing her manager a recently-obtained order of protection against her assailant. She…

Read More Lawsuit: Domestic Violence Victim Status Discrimination Case Against Chipotle
Share This:
by

Below is the complaint recently filed by Victoria Burhans and Chloe Rivera against the State of New York, in light of the Supreme Court’s March 7, 2014 dismissal of their claims against the Assembly of the State of New York. Their claims arise, as before, from the alleged sexual harassment committed by Vito Lopez and condoned by…

Read More Lawsuit: Victoria Burhans and Chloe Rivera’s Sexual Harassment and Hostile Work Environment Lawsuit Against New York State
Share This:
by

In Jacobsen v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp., 2014 N.Y. Slip Op 2098, the New York Court of Appeals recently held that summary judgment should not have been granted on plaintiff’s disability discrimination claims under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws. The court held that “both statutes generally preclude summary judgment…

Read More NY Court of Appeals Holds That Issues of Fact as to “Reasonable Accommodation” Preclude Summary Judgment on Disability Discrimination Claims
Share This:
by

A recent decision, Jackson v. Abrams, Fensterman, Fensterman, Flowers, Greenberg & Eisman, LLP, addresses the question of who is an “employer” under the Family and Medical Leave Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Plaintiff claims that the defendant law firm unlawfully terminated him as a chauffeur/driver after…

Read More Discrimination Plaintiff Raises Question of Fact as to Whether Law Firm Was His “Employer”
Share This:
by

In Godbolt v Verizon N.Y. Inc., the Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s claims that he was terminated from his employment on the basis of his race and past criminal convictions in violation of the New York State and City Human Rights Laws. “Defendant explained that it terminated plaintiff because he failed to…

Read More Court Holds That “Stray Remarks” Doctrine May Apply to Claims Brought Under the New York City Human Rights Law
Share This:
by

In Sanderson v. NY State Electric & Gas Corp., No. 13-1603-cv (2d Cir. Mar. 27, 2014) (Summary Order), the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s sex-based hostile work environment, disparate treatment, and retaliation claims. Plaintiff worked as a gas fitter for defendant. Initially, she worked on the day shift as the only woman of…

Read More “Snickering” and “Under the Breath” Comments Held Insufficient to Establish Hostile Work Environment
Share This:
by

In Salemi v Gloria’s Tribeca Inc., the Appellate Division, First Department unanimously upheld a jury’s $1.6 million award – comprising $400,000 in compensatory (emotional distress) damages and $1.2 million in punitive damages – for lesbian chef Mirella Salemi. The court explained: The record evidence, which is extensive and corroborated by multiple witnesses, amply supports the jury’s…

Read More First Department Affirms $1.6 Million Award in Sexual Orientation Discrimination and Retaliation Case
Share This:
by

The Second Circuit recently held, in Parada v. Banco Industrial De Venezuela (decided March 25, 2014), that “impairments that limit the ability to sit for long periods of time do not categorically fail to qualify as disabilities under” the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff worked for the defendant in a “largely sedentary” position. About six…

Read More Circuit Rejects “Categorical” Determination that Inability to Sit for Prolonged Periods is Not a “Disability” Under the Americans with Disabilities Act
Share This: