Blog

St. Louis v. Town of North Elba, 16 N.Y.3d 411 (March 31, 2011):  Court of Appeals upheld denial of summary judgment to defendant property owner. Plaintiff maintenance worker was injured when a section of pipe fell on him after being released by a “hydraulic-operated clamshell bucket attached to the bucket arm of a front-end loader”,…

Read More NY Court of Appeals: Function, Not Name, of Injury-Causing Machine Dictates Appropriateness of Industrial Code Section Forming Basis for Labor Law 241(6) claim

In Albunio et. al. v. City of New York, 16 NY3d 472 (March 31, 2011), the NY Court of Appeals reaffirmed the breadth of the New York City Administrative Code (“Code”), and in particular its anti-retaliation provision, codified at Code § 8-107 (7).  That section provides, in pertinent part:  “It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice . . .…

Read More NY Court of Appeals clarifies what it means to “oppose[]” a discriminatory practice under NYCHRL’s anti-retaliation provision

A New York law, known as the “Wage Theft Prevention Act” (and codified at Section 195 of the New York Labor Law) (“WTPA”), recently went into effect.    The WTPA, among other things, strengthens the Labor Law’s anti-retaliation provision, specifies additional notice requirements, and significantly increases penalties for noncompliance (by, for example, increasing liquidated damages from…

Read More NY Enacts Employee-Friendly “Wage Theft Prevention Act”

In Bessemer Trust Co., N.A. v. Branin (decided April 28, 2011), the New York Court of Appeals addressed the following question, which was certified to it by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 618 F.3d 76: What degree of participation in a new employer’s solicitation of a former employer’s client by a…

Read More NY Court of Appeals Clarifies Circumstances Triggering Liability Arising From Solicitation of Former Employer’s Client

In Govori v. Goat Fifty LLC, 10 Civ. 8982 (S.D.N.Y. March 30, 2011), the Southern District of New York held that plaintiff adequately stated a claim for pregnancy discrimination. Plaintiff contended that she was fired after announcing her plans to undergo in vitro fertilization (“IVF”), and sought relief under Title VII of the Civil Rights…

Read More Female Server States Claim For Pregnancy Discrimination, Bias Against In Vitro Fertilization

In Creagh v. Trata Estiatorio and Watermill 27 Partners, LLC (decided March 14, 2011), the court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of notice of the allegedly hazardous condition (here, water on the floor). Initially, the court summarized the law regarding premises liability, as well as the burdens of the parties on summary judgment…

Read More Court Denies Summary Judgment to Defendant Restaurant in Slip and Fall Case

In Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 131 S.Ct. 1186 (2011), (slip opinion here), the Supreme Court clarified the circumstances – under the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), 38 U.S.C. 4311 – under which an employer may be held liable for employment discrimination based on the discriminatory animus of an employee who influenced, but did not…

Read More U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies “Cat’s Paw” Liability Theory

The EEOC recently issued its final regulations pertaining to the Americans With Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008.  These new regulations significantly modify the existing legal landscape relating to the law of disability discrimination.  They include nine “rules of construction” derived from the statute or its legislative history, many of which relate to whether a…

Read More EEOC Issues New Regulations Regarding the ADA Amendments Act of 2008

In Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 131 S.Ct. 1325 (2011), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (FLSA) anti-retaliation provision does not require the submission of a written complaint. That provision, codified at 29 U.S.C. 215(a)(3), makes it unlawful to, inter alia, “discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee…

Read More FLSA Anti-Retaliation Provision Covers Oral, as Well as Written, Complaints