In my plaintiff-centric practice, my opening move – or rather, in keeping with the “litigation is war” analogy, “shot across the bow” – is, more often than not, a demand letter. At worst, such a letter will be ignored by one’s adversary; at best, it may lead to a lucrative settlement before litigation expenses kick…
Read More Demand Letter Accusing Hewlett Packard CEO Mark Hurd of Sexual HarassmentIn Wong v. Mangone, the Second Circuit recently affirmed a jury verdict in a case brought by Aaron Wong against James Mangone and upheld awards of $200,000 in damages and more than $167,000 in attorneys’ fees. Wong (who is black) alleged that Mangone (who is white) assaulted him while hurling racially derogatory language. In particular,…
Read More Second Circuit affirms jury verdict and $200k damage award following racially-motivated scuffleIn Nagle v. Marron et al. (decided Dec. 12, 2011), the Second Circuit vacated a district court’s grant of summary judgment against a schoolteacher (Nancy Nagle) who alleged, under 42 U.S.C. 1983, that she was denied tenure and terminated in retaliation for exercising her First Amendment rights – namely, reporting a fellow teacher for abusing students…
Read More Second Circuit Vacates Discmissal of Teacher’s First Amendment Retaliation ClaimScott v. WPIX, Inc., 10 Civ. 4622 (SDNY Dec. 21, 2011) (WHP): The Southern District denied defendant’s motions for summary judgment seeking dismissal of plaintiff Karen Scott’s age discrimination claim under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and the New York City Human Rights Law…
Read More Federal court denies summary judgment and allows plaintiff’s federal, state, and city age discrimination claims to continueIn a 42-page opinion issued last week (copy below), Southern District Judge Colleen McMahon held that the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act’s (“OSHA”) crane regulations did not preempt the New York City Building Code’s crane regulations (codified at Title 28 of the New York City Administrative Code). According to the Court, OSHA “is a…
Read More Federal Court rules that New York City statutes and regulations governing construction cranes are not preempted by OSHA regulationsIn Bennett v. Health Mgt. Sys., Inc., 2011 NY Slip Op. 09206 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dept. Dec. 20, 2011), the Appellate Division, First Department for the first time provided “an examination of whether, and to what extent, the three-step burden-shifting approach set forth in McDonnell Douglas v Green (411 US 792 [1973]), must be…
Read More Court Clarifies Summary Judgment Analysis For Discrimination Claims Under the New York City Human Rights LawIn Malinowski v. Wall Street Source, Inc., 09 Civ. 9592 (PAE) (SDNY Dec. 2, 2011), NYLJ 1202534751470, the Southern District of New York held that evidence of plaintiff’s post-termination wages was inadmissible in light of the severance clause in plaintiff’s contract (which provided that plaintiff could only be fired for cause). Plaintiff sought unpaid wages,…
Read More Severance Clause Nullifies Mitigation DutySalazar v. Novalex Contracting Corp., et al., 2011 NY Slip Op 08446 (Nov. 21, 2011) illustrates the “common sense approach” that must be employed when analyzing Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) claims. P and his fellow workmen were directed to pour and spread concrete over the floor of a basement which contained trenches into which…
Read More NY Court of Appeals Holds No Labor Law 240(1) or 241(6) Liability Where Protective Measure Would Have Been Inconsistent With WorkIn Zutrau v. Ice Systems, Inc., the Supreme Court, Suffolk County dismissed plaintiff’s “quid pro quo” sexual harassment claim. Plaintiff – the entity defendant’s executive vice president – asserted numerous claims, both individually and derivatively, against the entity defendant and Jansing, its president and majority shareholder. The court explained the law as follows: To make out…
Read More Court Rejects “Quid Pro Quo” Sexual Harassment Claim Where Plaintiff was Fired After Rebuffing Ex-Lover’s Attempt to Rekindle RelationshipIn Wilinski v. 334 East 92nd Housing Development Fund Corp., 2011 NY Slip Op 07477 (Oct. 25, 2011), the New York Court of Appeals vitiated the so-called “same level” rule that had embedded itself in New York Labor Law § 240(1) jurisprudence, and construed a Labor Law § 241(6)-triggering regulation. P, who was engaged in the demolition of…
Read More Court of Appeals Repudiates Labor Law § 240(1) “Same Level” Precedent and Construes a Labor Law § 241(6)-Triggering Regulation