Employment Discrimination

by

In Najjar v. Mirecki, 11-cv-5138 (SDNY July 2, 2013), the Southern District of New York held that a pro se plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to various claims of discrimination. This case illustrates the difference between the heightened “but for” and lessened “mixed motive” causation standards, as well as the differences between the…

Read More Age/Disability Discrimination Case Illustrates Difference Between “But For” and “Mixed Motive” Causation Standards
Share This:
by

In Cadet v. Deutsche Bank Securities, 11-cv-7964, 2013 WL 3090690 (SDNY June 18, 2013), decided on June 18, 2013, the Southern District of New York (McMahon, J.) denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff’s race discrimination claims brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. 1981, but dismissed his…

Read More Plaintiff’s Title VII and Section 1981 Race Discrimination Claims Survive in Part
Share This:
by

Today the U.S. Supreme Court held, in Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, that retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must meet the more rigorous “but for” standard of causation applied under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.   The Court, focusing on the text, history, and structure…

Read More U.S. Supreme Court Raises Causation Standard For Title VII Retaliation Claims
Share This:
by

Today the U.S. Supreme Court decided, in Vance v. Ball State University, which employees are “supervisors” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  I previously wrote about the case here. Whether the alleged discriminator/harasser is the plaintiff’s “supervisor” or “co-worker” is critical: Under Title VII, an employer’s liability for ……

Read More U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Who Is A Title VII “Supervisor”
Share This:
by

A case recently decided by the Eastern District of New York, Smith v NYC Health and Hosp Corp., 10-cv-714 (EDNY June 18, 2013), illustrates the somewhat difficult task faced by employment discrimination plaintiffs and confirms that not all workplace adversity is actionable. In short, the law does not impose a “general civility code which prohibits all…

Read More Court Rejects Plaintiff’s Hostile Work Environment and Retaliation Claims
Share This:
by

In Martino v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 105 AD3d 575 (App. Div. 1st Dept Apr. 18, 2013), the First Department held that New York’s “conviction discrimination” law (NY Correction Law Article 23-A, §§ 750-755) does not protect an employee from discipline/termination due to convictions and arrests incurred while they are employed. The court explained: Defendant…

Read More First Department Holds That New York’s “Conviction Discrimination” Law Does Not Protect Employee Where Conviction Occurs During Employment
Share This:
by

Below is the complaint, captioned Burhans and Rivera v. Lopez and Silver, 13 CIV 3870, filed in the Southern District of New York by Victoria Burhans and Chloe Rivera against (former) Assemblyman Vito Lopez and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver.   Plaintiffs allege violations of the Fourteenth Amendment (through 42 U.S.C. § 1983), the New York State Human…

Read More Federal Sexual Harassment Complaint Against Vito Lopez and Sheldon Silver
Share This:
by

In Krause v. Lancer & Loader Group LLC, 40 Misc.3d 385 (Sup. Ct. NY Cty. May 1, 2013), the court confirms that both the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) recognize claims of pregnancy discrimination, and that she stated such a claim under both laws.…

Read More Plaintiff States Claim for Pregnancy Discrimination Under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws
Share This: