Retaliation

In Collymore v. City of New York et al, 18-2099 (2d Cir. April 11, 2019) (Summary Order), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, inter alia, vacated the dismissal of plaintiff’s retaliation claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that she was the victim of…

Read More Title VII Retaliation Claim Survives Dismissal; Adverse Action Affected Plaintiff’s Health

In D’Andrea v. Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, 2019 WL 1503923 (2d Cir. April 5, 2019) (Summary Order), the Second Circuit – after affirming the dismissal of plaintiff’s retaliation claim – turned to plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim. The court understood plaintiff “to argue that DHS created a hostile work environment in…

Read More 2d Circuit Remands Hostile Work Environment Question to District Court

In Ravina v. Columbia University and Geert Bekaert, 16-cv-2137, 2019 WL 1450449 (S.D.N.Y. March 31, 2019), a sexual harassment/retaliation case, the court – in addition to denying defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on plaintiff’s retaliation claim – next evaluated the jury’s damage awards to plaintiff ($750,000 in emotional distress damages, $500,000…

Read More Court Remits Punitive Damages Award, from $500,000 to $250,000, in Sexual Harassment/Retaliation Case Against Columbia University

In Ravina v. Columbia University and Geert Bekaert, 16-cv-2137, 2019 WL 1450449 (S.D.N.Y. March 31, 2019), a sexual harassment/retaliation case, the court denied defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on plaintiff’s retaliation claim, but granted its motion for remittitur as to the jury’s damage awards for compensatory/emotional distress damages and punitive damages.…

Read More Jury Verdict of Retaliation for Complaints of Sexual Harassment Against Columbia University Professor Upheld

In Burgos v. City of New York, 2019 WL 1299461, at *10–11 (S.D.N.Y., 2019), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s retaliation claim – though it did dismiss his claims of discrimination based on his race (Hispanic) and religion (Islam). The court held that plaintiff sufficiently alleged the existence of one or…

Read More Sanitation Worker’s Title VII Retaliation Claim Survives Dismissal Against the City of New York

In Matter of Romero v. DHL Holdings (USA) Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 00936 (App. Div. 1st Dept. Feb. 7, 2019), the court affirmed the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board’s determination that the claimant was discharged for cause, and not in violation of the Workers’ Compensation Law. The court summarized the law: Workers’ Compensation Law…

Read More Workers’ Compensation Retaliatory Discharge Claim Dismissal Affirmed

In Cubelo v. City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 00689 (App. Div. 1st Dept. Jan. 31, 2019), the court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s discrimination and retaliation claims. Plaintiff – who was born in Spain – alleged that he was “passed over for several promotions in his employment as a civil engineer with…

Read More Court Affirms Dismissal of Engineer’s Discrimination and Retaliation Claims

In Sims v Trustees of Columbia University, No. 156566/13, 8262, 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 00672, 2019 WL 385366 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept., Jan. 31, 2019), the Appellate Division, First Department held that the lower court properly dismissed plaintiff’s discrimination and retaliation, but not plaintiff’s hostile work environment, claims. As to plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims, the court…

Read More “Bubbles” Chimp Hostile Work Environment Claim Resurrected From Summary Judgment Dismissal

In Clark v. Allen & Overy LLP, 2019 NY Slip Op 30146(U) ,Index No. 453138/2017 (Sup. Ct. NY Cty. Jan. 16, 2019) – an employment discrimination case including allegations of retaliatory discharge and sexual harassment (among many others) – the court dismissed, inter alia, dismissed plaintiff’s “breach of attorney client privilege” claim. Plaintiff claimed that “while working with…

Read More Court: No Cause of Action for “Breach of Attorney Client Privilege”