Court: SDNY

by

In Chakraborty v. Valentina Soto & The Riverside Church, 16-cv-9128, 2017 WL 5157616 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 2017), the court explained and applied the “election of remedies” doctrines codified in the New York State and City Human Rights Laws. Specifically, it held that that doctrine deprived it of subject matter jurisdiction to hear plaintiff’s NYSHRL and NYCHRL…

Read More Broadly-Construed “Election of Remedies” Doctrine Operates to Deprive Federal Court of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Over NYS and NYC Human Rights Law Claims
Share This:
by

In George v. Professional Disposables Int’l, Inc., 2017 WL 4574806 (S.D.N.Y., 2017), an employment discrimination case, the court denied defendant’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s denial of defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff alleged that he was subjected to discrimination and a hostile work environment based on his race, color, and national origin in violation…

Read More Employment Discrimination Claims Continue; Court Denies Reconsideration of Summary Judgment Denial
Share This:
by

In Patrizia Pelgrift, et al., Plaintiffs, v. 335 W. 41st Tavern Inc., et al., Defendants. Additional Party Names: David Sheeran, Iryna Lutsenko, Valeriya Kolisnyk, 2017 WL 4712482, at *10 (S.D.N.Y., 2017), the court held, inter alia, that a default judgment on plaintiff’s sexual harassment claims was warranted. The court summarized the law as follows: Under…

Read More Sexual Harassment Default Judgment Warranted Under “Quid Pro Quo” and “Hostile Work Environment” Theories/Paradigms
Share This:
by

In Pouncy v. Advanced Focus LLC, 2017 WL 428094 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2017), the court (inter alia) granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 1981, and the New York City Human Rights Law.[1]I wrote about the court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s…

Read More Retaliation Claims Dismissed Due to Absence of “Protected Activity”; Plaintiff’s Complaints Were Unrelated to a Legally Protected Characteristic
Share This:
by

In Pouncy v. Advanced Focus LLC, 2017 WL 428094 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2017), a race discrimination case, the court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s race-based hostile work environment claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 1981, and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). As…

Read More Hostile Work Environment Was Not “Because Of” Race; Summary Judgment Granted to Defendant
Share This:
by

A recent decision, Dudley v. New York City Housing Authority, 2017 WL 4315010 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2017), reaffirms the principle that a hostile work environment claim must arise from hostility because of a protected characteristic. In this case, plaintiff alleged that he “was subjected to a hostile work environment in retaliation for his prior protected…

Read More Court Dismisses “Retaliatory Hostile Work Environment” Claims
Share This:
by

In Gracia v. City of NY, 16-CV-7329, 2017 WL 4286319 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2017) (J. Caproni), the court held that a release signed by plaintiff – a female NYPD officer – to resolve a personal injury slip-and-fall case was broad enough to encompass claims for gender discrimination sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and retaliation. In…

Read More Personal Injury Release Held Broad Enough to Cover Employment Discrimination, Sexual Harassment, and Retaliation Claims
Share This:
by

In Lamarr-Arruz & Ansoralli v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 15-cv-04261, 2017 WL 4280690 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2017), the court denied defendant CVS’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Here I will focus…

Read More Race-Based Hostile Work Environment Claims Survive Summary Judgment; Court Clarifies Scope of 42 U.S.C. § 1981
Share This:
by

In Osby v. City of New York, 13-cv-8826, 2017 WL 4236563 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2017), the court granted defendant’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, and dismissed plaintiff’s disability discrimination and retaliation claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). To make out an ADA discrimination claim, plaintiff…

Read More ADA Disability Discrimination & Retaliation Claims Dismissed; Employer Actions Were Time-Barred, Not “Adverse Employment Actions”, or Were Not Undertaken Because of Discriminatory Animus
Share This:
by

From Mikolaenko v. New York University, 2017 WL 4174928 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2017) (J. Batts): Defendant also moves to dismiss on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies because she first included allegations of a quid pro quo sexual relationship in her Complaint and did not include related allegations in her EEOC…

Read More “Quid Pro Quo” Sexual Harassment Claim Was Sufficiently Presented to the EEOC, Court Holds
Share This: