Aiding and Abetting Discrimination

by

In Figueroa v. RSquared NY Inc. (EDNY March 3, 2015), the Eastern District of New York held that plaintiff stated a claim for “quid pro quo” sexual harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York State Human Rights Law. In sum, plaintiff alleged that while on a leave of absence…

Read More Conditioning Return to Work on “Hooking Up” With “De Facto Supervisor” is Plausible Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment Theory, Court Holds
Share This:
by

In Dillon v. Ned Management, Inc. et al., 13-cv-2622 (EDNY 2/2/15), the Eastern District of New York denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s hostile work environment sexual harassment, aiding and abetting, and retaliation claims. The decision offers a good review of the current state of the law under Title VII of the Civil Rights…

Read More Hostile Work Environment Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Claims Continue Against Ned Management
Share This:
by

In Johnson v. County of Nassau (EDNY Jan. 30, 2015), the Eastern District of New York explained and applied Section 296(6) of the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), which makes it an unlawful discriminatory practice “for any person to aid, abet, incite, compel or coerce the doing of any of the acts forbidden…

Read More Court Ponders Individual Liabilty for Race Discrimination Under NYS Human Rights Law
Share This:
by

A recent district court decision, Patrick v. Garlick, No. 13-CV-6365L, 2014 WL 6883634 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2014), explains the differences between federal and state anti-discrimination law  regarding individual liability of the alleged harasser. There, plaintiffs, employees of Seneca Lake State Park, sued Steve Garlick (the park’s branch manager and the plaintiffs’ supervisor), alleging that Garlick subjected them…

Read More Court Explains Individual Liability Under State Human Rights Law
Share This:
by

In Rivera v. Balter Sales Co. (decided 12/1/14), the Southern District of New York held that plaintiff sufficiently alleged claims for aiding and abetting discriminatory conduct (under the New York State Human Rights Law) and false arrest. What is interesting about this case is that plaintiff sued not only her former employer, but also the…

Read More Fired Plaintiff Sufficiently Alleges “Aiding and Abetting” Claim Arising From Retaliatory Arrest
Share This:
by

A recent Eastern District decision, Delisi v. National Ass’n of Professional Women, illustrates the circumstances under which an individual defendant – here, defendant’s general counsel – may be liable under the “aiding and abetting” and retaliation provisions of the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). Generally, plaintiff asserted that she was subjected to sexual harassment, and…

Read More Company’s Alleged Failure to Investigate Discrimination Complaint Supported “Aiding and Abetting” and Retaliation Claims
Share This:
by

The Eastern District’s recent decision in Tate v. Rocketball Ltd (decided 9/18/14) provides some insight into how courts assess discrimination claims arising outside the “typical” employer-employee relationship/setting. Plaintiff, a gay male, worked for a restaurant. Part of his job duties included bringing food and drinks to the Houston Rockets’ locker room while they were at Barclays Center…

Read More Waiter’s Sexual Orientation Discrimination/Hostile Work Environment Claims Dismissed Against Non-Employer Houston Rockets’ Owner
Share This:
by

Here is the sexual harassment lawsuit, captioned Maysa Abdel-Razeq v. Alvarez & Marsal, Inc. et al., 14-CV-5601, recently filed in the Southern District of New York against defendants Alvarez & Marsal, Inc., Paul Aversano, Anthony Caporrino, and Joel Poretsky. Plaintiff alleges that she was subjected to hostile work environment sexual harassment and race discrimination, and then…

Read More Lawsuit Alleges Hostile Work Environment Sexual Harassment, Race Discrimination, and Retaliation Against Alvarez & Marsal and Others
Share This:
by

In Lyman v. New York and Presbyterian Hospital, decided July 14, 2014, the Southern District of New York denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s disability discrimination and retaliation claims. This decision illustrates that “[b]ecause direct evidence of an employer’s discriminatory intent will rarely be found, affidavits and depositions must be carefully scrutinized for circumstantial…

Read More “Problem” Employee Presents Enough Evidence of Disability Discrimination to Survive Summary Judgment
Share This: