In Vitale v. Equinox Holdings, Inc., 2019 WL 2024504 (SDNY May 7, 2019), the court, inter alia, dismissed plaintiff’s claim of gender discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Initially, the court held that certain remarks were too remote in time to be probative of discrimination: [C]omments that the plaintiff was…
Read More Gender Discrimination Claims Against Equinox DismissedA recent decision, Dotson v. City of Syracuse et al, 18-cv-750, 2019 WL 2009076 (N.D.N.Y. May 7, 2019), underscores that so-called “hostile work environment” claims require more than simply “derogatory”, “boorish”, or “offensive” language. The court summarized the well-established law applicable to plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim: In determining whether conduct constitutes a hostile work…
Read More Derogatory, Boorish Language Did Not Give Rise to Hostile Work EnvironmentIn Automatic Meter Reading Corp. v. New York City, No. 162211/2015, 63 Misc. 3d 1211(A), 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 50464(U), 2019 WL 1475080 (Sup Ct, Feb. 28, 2019), the court, inter alia, affirmed and enforced the New York City Commission on Human Rights’ finding of sexual harassment-based constructive discharge. It also upheld the NYCCHR’s award of $200,000…
Read More Court Upholds NYC Commission on Human Rights’ $200k Emotional Distress Damage Award in Sexual Harassment / Constructive Discharge CaseIn Automatic Meter Reading Corp. v. New York City, No. 162211/2015, 63 Misc. 3d 1211(A), 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 50464(U), 2019 WL 1475080 (Sup Ct, Feb. 28, 2019), the court, inter alia, affirmed and enforced the New York City Commission on Human Rights’ finding of sexual harassment-based constructive discharge. From the decision: The NYCCHR found…
Read More Court Upholds NYCCHR Finding of Constructive DischargeIn Laface v. Eastern Suffolk BOCES et al, 2019 WL 1959489 (EDNY May 2, 2019), the court, inter alia, dismissed plaintiff’s claim of discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The court provides the following overview of the law: To plausibly allege an actionable ADEA discrimination claim based on hostile work environment, the…
Read More ADEA Discrimination/Hostile Work Environment Complaint Dismissed Against Eastern Suffolk BOCESIn Barbini v. First Niagara Bank, N.A., 16-cv-7887, 2019 WL 1922041 (S.D.N.Y. April 29, 2019), the court held, inter alia, that defendant waived the attorney-client privilege in connection with asserting the Faragher/Ellerth defense to plaintiffs’ sexual harassment claims. Under that defendant may escape liability if it can show two things, namely, (1) the employer exercised reasonable care…
Read More Invocation of Faragher/Ellerth Defense in Sexual Harassment Case Waives Attorney-Client Privilege, Court FindsIn McCullough v. John T. Mather Hospital of Port Jefferson, New York, Inc., 16-cv-4968, 2019 WL 1755436 (EDNY April 19, 2019), the court, inter alia, dismissed plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim. It summarized the law as follows: Title VII and NYSHRL prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee on the basis of race, color,…
Read More Hostile Work Environment Claims Dismissed; “Inappropriate” Comments Were Insufficiently Severe, and Not Tied to Protected StatusIn Harding v Donatella GCT LLC, No. 158886/2017, 2019 WL 1597675, at *1 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Apr. 11, 2019), the court granted plaintiff’s motion under CPLR 3025 (b) to amend her complaint to add a claim under the Fair Chance Act of the New York City Human Rights Law, alleging that Donatella…
Read More Court Permits Amendment to Add “Fair Chance Act” Criminal History Discrimination ClaimIn Escobar v. Tutor Perini Corp. 2019 NY Slip Op 31020(U), 152524/2018 (Sup. Ct. NY Cty. April 8, 2019) (J. Freed), the court, inter alia, dismissed plaintiff’s discrimination claims, advanced under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws under an “aiding and abetting” theory. The court wrote: To be held liable as an…
Read More Court Dismisses “Aiding and Abetting” Discrimination ClaimIn Natofsky v. City of New York, 2019 WL 1715951 (2d Cir. April 18, 2019), the Second Circuit, inter alia, held that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) employs the (relatively strict) “but for” causation standard. From the decision: Having determined that the ADA does not incorporate Title VII’s mixed-motive standard, the remaining question is…
Read More 2d Circuit Holds That the ADA Requires “But For” Causation