Blog

by

In Roskin-Frazee v. Columbia University, 17-CV-2032, 2018 WL 6523721 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2018), the court dismissed plaintiff’s claim under Title IX of the United States Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a) (and state causes of action) against Columbia University. In this case, plaintiff alleged “that Defendant created a culture of sexual hostility on…

Read More Student-on-Student Sexual Harassment Title IX Claim Dismissed Against Columbia
Share This:
by

On Nov. 16, 2018, the U.S. Department of Education issued proposed regulations to supplement Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, a statute that is codified at 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. Title IX, in a nutshell, is a federal law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex in any federally funded education program…

Read More Proposed Title IX Regulations
Share This:
by

In Duarte v. St. Barnabas Hospital, 15-CV-6824, 2018 WL 4440501 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2018) – a disability discrimination case – the court held, inter alia, that a jury award of $750,000 for punitive damages was too high, and that $125,000 was more appropriate. The court explained, inter alia, that “[u]nder the [New York City Human Rights…

Read More Court Explains Remittitur of $750,000 Punitive Damages Award in Disability Discrimination Case
Share This:
by

In Duarte v. St. Barnabas Hospital, 15-CV-6824, 2018 WL 4440501 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2018) – a disability discrimination case – the court held, inter alia, that a jury award of $624,000 for compensatory/emotional distress damages was too high, and that $125,000 was more appropriate. To do this, the court employed the procedural mechanism of “remittitur.” After explaining…

Read More Court Explains Remittitur of $624,000 Emotional Distress Damages Award to $125,000 in Disability Discrimination Case
Share This:
by

Generally, the anti-discrimination laws – such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – prohibit discrimination against employees and applicants based on certain protected characteristics (as in the case of Title VII, race, color, religion, sex, and national origin).    That said, there exists a (limited) exception, where such a characteristic is…

Read More The “Bona Fide Occupational Qualification” (“BFOQ”) in Employment Law
Share This:
by

Employment discrimination cases are often resolved by settlement – i.e., a negotiated agreement for the parties to discontinue a case on agreed-upon terms. A settlement can be reached either before or after the commencement of litigation. In many, if not most, cases, the agreement will be reduced to a writing and signed by the parties.…

Read More Settling an Employment Discrimination Case: The Agreement
Share This:
by

Federal, state, and local anti-discrimination laws prohibit discrimination based on, among other factors, “disability.” That term is, in turn, defined in the statutes themselves. For example, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C.A. § 12101 et seq., defines a “disability” as: “(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major…

Read More Is Obesity a “Disability” Under the Anti-Discrimination Laws?
Share This:
by

In Martin v. City University of New York, 2018 WL 6510805 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2018), the court, inter alia, dismissed plaintiff’s age and race discrimination claims. In doing so, the court cited and applied the so-called “stray remarks” doctrine. In support of the “inference of discrimination” element of plaintiff’s prima facie case, plaintiff advanced the following four remarks…

Read More Citing the “Stray Remarks” Doctrine, Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s Age and Race Discrimination Claims
Share This:
by

In Martin v. City University of New York, 2018 WL 6510805 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2018), the court, inter alia, rejected defendants’ argument that plaintiff is precluded from litigating his § 1981 claims in the instant action, because plaintiff presented those allegations to the New York State Division of Human Rights (SDHR), which rejected them on the merits.…

Read More Court Finds That “No Probable Cause” Determination Did Not Preclude Litigation of § 1981 Race Discrimination Claim in Court
Share This: