In Cruz v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., the Second Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a bank officer’s claim of breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court cited the rule of “at will employment” in New York and its narrow exception, based on the New York Court of Appeals’ decision…
Read More Bank Officer Not Entitled to Invoke Narrow Exception to “At Will” Employment RuleSantiago v. Dept. of Education illustrates that in an employment discrimination case, the plaintiff must plausibly allege an “adverse employment action.” The quintessential “adverse employment action” is, of course, termination. However, other actions short of termination may qualify. Plaintiff – an itinerant attendance teacher – alleged disparate treatment and a hostile work environment under the…
Read More Employment Discrimination Lawsuit Dismissed; No “Adverse Action”In Johnson v. City University of New York, decided Sept. 8, 2014, the Southern District of New York once again clarified that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not prohibit bullying and harassment that is unconnected with legally-protected characteristics. The court’s first paragraph summarizes the law nicely: Bullying and harassment have no…
Read More “Bullying” and “Harassment” Unconnected to Membership in a Protected Class Not Actionable Under Title VIIIn Hefti v. Brand Union, Inc. (a wrongful termination lawsuit), decided July 2, 2014, the New York Supreme Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff alleged that she was subjected to discrimination based on her disability (clinical depression and bipolar disorder), including by forcing her to disclosing personal…
Read More Court Rejects Defendant’s Reliance on “After-Acquired Evidence” DoctrineIn Chiaramonte v. The Animal Medical Center, the Southern District of New York recently held that plaintiff successfully pleaded – “by a very narrow margin” – claims under the federal Equal Pay Act and its New York equivalent. In this case, Plaintiff alleges in the Amended Complaint that she, in addition to serving as a…
Read More Female Veterinarian Plausibly Alleges Equal Pay Act ClaimsA recent Southern District of New York decision, Fitzgerald v Signature Flight Support Corp., 13 CV 4026 VB, 2014 WL 3887217 [SDNY Aug. 5, 2014], is illustrative of how a plaintiff may plausibly allege age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. There was no dispute that plaintiff satisfied the first three elements…
Read More Selective Enforcement of “Sleeping on the Job” Rules Plausibly Supports Age Discrimination ClaimIn Moll v. Telesector Resources Group, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (in a July 24, 2014 decision) vacated the district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s sex-based hostile work environment claim. Plaintiff alleged, inter alia: [I]n 1998 and 1999, Daniel Irving, a Senior Systems Analyst, left Moll three inappropriate notes. And in 1999,…
Read More Non-Sexual Comments Can Still Give Rise to a Sex-Based Hostile Work Environment, Second Circuit HoldsOne way to prove discrimination is by introducing evidence of negative comments pertaining to the plaintiff’s protected class or about others in the plaintiff’s protected class. But what if some, or all, of the derogatory comments are not directly perceived by the harassment victim? That is one of the issues addressed by the Southern District…
Read More Secondhand “Incendiary” Comments Regarding Sexual Orientation Sufficient to State Hostile Work Environment ClaimIn Lapaix v. City of New York (decided Aug. 12, 2014), the Southern District of New York held that plaintiff – a retired Marine Colonel – adequately pleaded various employment discrimination claims. Here’s plaintiff’s complaint. Initially the court held that plaintiff stated military status discrimination claims under the federal Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) and the New…
Read More Retired Marine States Military Status, Race, and National Origin Discrimination ClaimsIn Nielsen v. AECOM Technology Corp. (decided August 8, 2014), the Second Circuit clarified the standard to be applied when evaluating whistleblower retaliation claims under Section 806 the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1514A (SOX). Congress enacted SOX “[t]o safeguard investors in public companies and restore trust in the financial markets following the collapse of…
Read More Second Circuit Clarifies SOX Whistleblowing Standard