In a short opinion, the First Department in Santo-Perez v. Enterprise Leasing Co. (decided March 26, 2015) reversed summary judgment for defendant driver, even though the pedestrian they hit was outside the crosswalk at the time. The court wrote: While the fact that plaintiff was crossing the street on foot outside of the crosswalk, in…
Read More Outside-the-Crosswalk Pedestrian Knockdown Case ContinuesIn Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 1338 (March 25, 2015), the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted and applied a portion of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act relating to accommodations that covered employers must make to pregnant workers. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k), amends Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of…
Read More U.S. Supreme Court Interprets Title VII’s Pregnancy Discrimination Act; Vacates Judgment Against Pregnant EmployeeIn Barris v. One Beard St., LLC, the Appellate Division, Second Department reversed the grant of summary judgment to defendants. In this personal injury/premises liability case, “[t]he injured plaintiff, who was then 12 years old and accompanied by his father, allegedly slipped and fell on loose and broken pieces of asphalt as he was running…
Read More IKEA Slip/Fall Case ContinuesMany employment discrimination cases involve allegations by an employee (or former employee) that they have endured discriminatory treatment based on one or more of that person’s protected characteristics. But what you may not know is that there is another type of claim – referred to in the case law as “associational discrimination” – based on the…
Read More Your Sick Daughter or Your Job? Associational Discrimination Claims Survive Summary JudgmentNazi dentists are terrifying. Drunk dentists may be a close second. New York’s whistleblower statutes – codified at Labor Law §§ 740 and 741 – are notoriously (and, from a plaintiffs’ lawyer’s perspective, frustratingly) narrow. It is, therefore, refreshing to see a plaintiff prevail, if “only” on a motion for summary judgment. This victory – arguably the…
Read More Plaintiff Fired After Complaining About Drunk Dentist Survives Summary Judgment on Labor Law § 741 Whistleblower ClaimIn Overbeck v. Alpha Animal Health, P.C. (App. Div. 2nd Dept. Jan. 28, 2015), the Appellate Division, Second Department reversed the lower court’s order granting summary judgment to defendants on plaintiff’s sex discrimination and retaliation claims under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws. This decision illustrates that even “voluntary” sexual conduct –…
Read More Evidence of Intimidation Into Sexual Relationship Overcomes Summary Judgment for Defendants on Sex Discrimination and Retaliation ClaimsWhen many people think of sexual harassment, they likely think of a man sexually harassing their female subordinate. However, sexual harassment works both ways – i.e., the harasser, as well as the victim. That was the case in Hasper v. County of Suffolk, decided by the Eastern District of New York on Feb. 25, 2015. There,…
Read More Treating Male and Female Sexual Harassment Victims Differently Creates Factual Issue on Title VII Gender Discrimination ClaimIn DiGiacomo v. Town of Babylon (App. Div. 2nd Dept. Jan. 28, 2015), the Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the denial of defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Here are the facts of this personal injury case, the six-year old plaintiff was injured when she fell from a “monkey bar”. According to her testimony: [P]rior to her accident,…
Read More “Monkey Bar” Playground Injury Case ContinuesIn Steele v. Santana (App Div. 1st Dept. 2/19/15), a personal injury injury car accident case, the Appellate Division, First Department reversed the lower court’s determination that plaintiff did not suffer a “serious injury” within the meaning of section 5102(d) of the New York Insurance Law. In this case, plaintiff alleges that she suffered injuries to…
Read More Evidence of Tendon and Rotator Cuff Tears Present Triable Issue of Fact Relating to “Serious Injury” in Car Accident CaseNo one likes/wants to be sued. Process servers – people hired by attorneys to deliver litigation papers to a named defendant – are, therefore, not exactly “welcome” when they attempt to serve papers on a defendant. A recent case, Galtieri v. Uptown Communications & Electric, Inc. and Jonathan Smokler, Sup. Ct. Qns. Cty. 19589/2012, illustrates…
Read More Process Server’s Assault/Battery and False Imprisonment Claims Continue