Sexual Harassment

by

In Bray v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 2018 WL 1558436 (N.Y.Sup. Ct. NY Cty. March 30, 2018, Index No. 158989/2013) (J. Tisch), the court, inter alia, held that plaintiff raised triable issues of fact (and hence denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment) as to her claims of gender discrimination (hostile work environment sexual…

Read More Hostile Work Environment (Sexual Harassment) Claim Against Department of Education Survives Summary Judgment
Share This:
by

In Richardson v. Manhattan New York City Transit Authority, 2018 WL 1547593 (2d Cir. March 29, 2018) (Summary Order), the Second Circuit vacated the lower court’s decision dismissing the pro se plaintiff’s Title VII gender discrimination claim, on the ground that plaintiff did not allege facts showing that the alleged harassment was “motivated by” her…

Read More Gender Discrimination Claim Stated; Allegations Included Male Coworker Calling Plaintiff a “Bitch”
Share This:
by

From D’Antonio v. Little Flower Children & Family Services of New York et al, 17-cv-1221, 2018 WL 1385897 (E.D.N.Y. March 19, 2018): This Court is persuaded by Judge Lynch’s reasoning in Collette, and based on the facts presented in this case, holds that Plaintiff’s hostile work environment and retaliation claims under Title VII and Section…

Read More NY Whistleblower Law’s Election-of-Remedies Provision Does Not Preclude Hostile Work Environment and Retaliation Claims, Court Holds
Share This:
by

In Jones v. Target Corporation, 15-CV-4672, 2018 WL 1377301 (EDNY March 16, 2018), the court, inter alia, dismissed plaintiff’s retaliation claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In sum, defendant terminated plaintiff for violating its drug-free workplace policy after marijuana was found in the employee locker room. According to her, the marijuana was…

Read More Court Dismisses Retaliation Claim Against Target; “Cat’s Paw” Theory Inapplicable
Share This:
by

Below is the lawsuit, captioned Bickram v. M.A.C. Cosmetics Inc., 18-cv-2279 (SDNY March 15, 2018), recently filed in federal court against M.A.C. Cosmetics.[1]Unless otherwise noted, Pospis Law, PLLC does not represent the party in any filing referenced on this blog, including this one. The case has been assigned to Judge Paul Gardephe.  [+] References ↩1 Unless…

Read More Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Against M.A.C. Cosmetics Inc.
Share This:
by

In Stoica v. Phipps, 2018 WL 1226045 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. Index No. 153834/2017, March 8, 2018) (J. Lebovits), the court, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s hostile work environment sexual harassment claims under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.[1]It also held that plaintiff sufficiently alleged various other claims, including…

Read More Nanny Sufficiently Alleges Hostile Work Environment / Sexual Harassment; Claims Were Not “Too Outrageous and Incredible to be Believed”
Share This:
by

In Graham v. Goodwill Industries, Inc., 16-cv-6468, 2018 WL 1318988 (EDNY March 14, 2018), the court held, inter alia, that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s sexual harassment claims under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.[1]The court also, inter alia, dismissed plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims under Title VII of…

Read More Federal Court Lacked Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over Sexual Harassment Claims Adjudicated at State Agency
Share This:
by

In Montanez v. McDean LLC, No. 16-cv-447, 2018 WL 1183688 (N.D.N.Y. March 6, 2018), the court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff’s hostile work environment sexual harassment claim, asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After explaining the legal standard for making out a hostile work environment claim,…

Read More Sexual Harassment Claim Dismissed; “Quickly Rebuffed” “Suggestive Remarks” Insufficient
Share This:
by

In a lawsuit filed today in Los Angeles Superior Court – captioned Stormy Daniels v. Donald J. Trump a.k.a. David Dennison et al – plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the nondisclosure agreement purporting to silence Ms. Daniels is “void, invalid, or otherwise unenforceable” because, inter alia, Donald “The Art of the Deal” Trump never…

Read More Pornstar v. President: Stormy Daniels Sues Donald Trump, Seeking to Void NDA
Share This: