Court: EDNY

by

A recent case, decided by the Eastern District of New York on October 17, 2018, illustrates what does – and, as relevant here, does not – qualify as a “hostile work environment.” The decision is Thompson v. MTA New York City Transit et al, 17-cv-5857, 2018 WL 5045762 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2018). The court outlines…

Read More Hostile Work Environment Claim Dismissed; While “Tasteless and Offensive”, Messages Were Not Related to a Protected Class
Share This:
by

In Parsons v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 16-CV-0408, 2018 WL 4861379 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2018), the court, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s age discrimination claims. This case teaches us that replacement by a younger worker does not necessarily (but, in an appropriate case, may) substantiate a claim for discrimination based…

Read More Age Discrimination Claims Dismissed, Despite Younger Replacement
Share This:
by

In Parsons v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 16-CV-0408, 2018 WL 4861379 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2018), the court, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s race-based hostile work environment claims. Plaintiff alleged, for example, that she witnessed one person make disparaging comments about African-American employees’ hair and dress, and “listened to her direct…

Read More Race-Based Hostile Work Environment Claims Dismissed; Conduct Was Merely “Mildly Offensive”
Share This:
by

In Menaker v. Hofstra University, 17-cv-5562, 2018 WL 4636818 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2018), the court granted defendant’s motion, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), to dismiss plaintiff’s gender discrimination complaint against Hofstra University. In sum, defendant fired plaintiff (defendant’s Director of Tennis and Head Coach of men’s and women’s varsity tennis teams) for “unprofessional conduct”…

Read More Court Dismisses Hofstra Tennis Director’s Gender Discrimination Complaint Dismissed; Misconduct Allegations, Not Gender, Were Reason for Termination
Share This:
by

In Morris v. New York City Health and Hospital Corp., 09-CV-5692, 2018 WL 4762247 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2018), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s sexual harassment (hostile work environment) claim, with respect to one alleged harasser. As to plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim, the court explained: After assessing the…

Read More Sexual Harassment Claims Survive Summary Judgment Against NYC Health & Hospital Corp.
Share This:
by

In Maines et al v. Last Chance Funding, Inc. d/b/a The LCF Group et al, 2018 WL 4558408 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2018), the court clarified the standard for imposing liability on individual defendants under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), N.Y. Executive Law § 290 et seq. The statute, explained the court, provides for…

Read More Court Explains Standard for Individual Liability for a Hostile Work Environment Under the New York State Human Rights Law
Share This:
by

In Maines et al v. Last Chance Funding, Inc. d/b/a The LCF Group et al, 2018 WL 4558408 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2018), the court, inter alia, held that one plaintiff (Alexandre) sufficiently stated a claim for hostile work environment based on gender in a proposed amended complaint.[1]The court also held that this particular plaintiff also sufficiently alleged…

Read More Hostile Work Environment Claim Sufficiently Alleged; Claims Include Inappropriate Touching and Viewing Pornography
Share This:
by

In Rice v. Smithtown Volkswagen, 2018 WL 3848923 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2018), the court held that plaintiff sufficiently pleaded claims for “quid pro quo” sexual harassment, hostile work environment sexual harassment, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (In this post I will discuss the court’s assessment of plaintiff’s “hostile work…

Read More Hostile Work Environment Claim Stated Against Smithtown Volkswagen
Share This:
by

In Rice v. Smithtown Volkswagen, 2018 WL 3848923 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2018), the court held that plaintiff sufficiently pleaded claims for “quid pro quo” sexual harassment, hostile work environment sexual harassment, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (In this post I will discuss the court’s assessment of plaintiff’s “quid pro…

Read More Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment Claim Stated Against Smithtown Volkswagen
Share This:
by

In Pothen v. StonyBrook University, 2018 WL 3954148 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2018), the court adopted a Report and Recommendation (R&R) that plaintiff’s discrimination and retaliation claims be dismissed. In doing so, the court discussed the so-called “continuing violation” doctrine. From the decision: the Court agrees with the R&R’s conclusion that plaintiff’s claims based on separate,…

Read More Absent Evidence of “Practice or Policy” of Discrimination, Court Declines to Apply “Disfavored” Continuing Violations Doctirine “Continuing Violation” Doctrine Held Inapplicable
Share This: