Today is Martin Luther King Jr. Day, a federal holiday that marks the birthday of the civil rights leader, who was assassinated on April 4, 1968. Dr. King was present when President Johnson signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal law that prohibits discrimination in (e.g.) employment (Title VII) and public…
Read More Celebrating Martin Luther King Jr.In Croci v. Town of Haverstraw, No. 2015-01366, 2017 WL 99235 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dept. Jan. 11, 2017), a New York appellate court upheld the dismissal of plaintiff’s sexual harassment case. This decision is instructive on when an employer will be vicariously liable for sexual harassment under the New York State Human Rights Law. Here…
Read More Town Not Vicariously Liable for Co-Worker’s Alleged Sexual Harassment; Summary Judgment AffirmedIn Kasperek v. N.Y. State, Dep’t of Corr. & Cmty. Supervision, No. 16-CV-671V, 2017 WL 85426 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2017), the court recommended the denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim of sex-based hostile work environment. The facts (in part), as summarized by the court: The events pertaining to this case began on October…
Read More Penis Graffiti Among Allegations in Sufficiently-Alleged Sex-Based Hostile Work Environment ClaimBoth Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay Act of 1963 prohibit – in addition to discrimination based on specified criteria/characteristics – “retaliation” for engaging in “protected activity”. In certain cases, “protected activity” can be the litigation itself. In the matter of Kerrie Campbell v. Chadbourne & Parke LLP,…
Read More Counterclaim Alleged to be Retaliatory in Gender Discrimination Class Action Lawsuit Against Chadbourne & Parke Law FirmIn Green v. Avis Budget Grp., Inc., No. 11-CV-00269V(F), 2017 WL 35452 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 2017), the court dismissed plaintiff’s employment discrimination (disparate treatment), hostile work environment, and retaliation claims. Here I’ll discuss the court’s evaluation of the “adverse employment action” element of the prima facie case[1]“To establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination…
Read More Criticism of Work, Failure to Provide Desired Schedule (Etc.) Were Not “Adverse Employment Actions”In a lawsuit filed on January 5, 2017 captioned Heffernan v. Delta Airlines et al (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. Index 150092/2017), plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that their “mentor” (Delta employee) Mike Keve exposed himself and masturbated at work and that they were terminated in retaliation for complaining about it, in violation of the New…
Read More Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Against Delta Airlines Features “Masturbating Mentor”In Horwitz v. Loop Capital Markets LLC (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty., Index No. 650944/2016, Dec. 5, 2016), the court denied defendant’s CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion to dismiss and held that plaintiff sufficiently alleged a claim for discrimination based on a disability (here, a stutter) under the New York City Human Rights Law.[1]The court also ruled on…
Read More Disability Discrimination Claim, Based on Stutter, Survives Motion to DismissIn Guerra v. Murphy, No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 WL 7480405 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 29, 2016), the court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s disparate-treatment employment discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as he failed to plausibly allege the existence of an “adverse employment action.” The court also dismissed plaintiff’s hostile work…
Read More Absence of “Adverse Employment Action” Results in Dismissal of Title VII Disparate-Treatment Employment Discrimination ClaimsAs 2016 draws to a close, I’d like to take a brief moment to reflect on the past year. Cases We have continued to fight on behalf of our clients in employment discrimination, sexual harassment, and personal injury matters. Cases we have handled this year include: Sexual harassment ($500,000 settlement) Disability discrimination and retaliation ($30,000…
Read More Pospis Law Year in Review: 2016In Nadesan v. Citizens Fin. Grp., No. 16-942-CV, 2016 WL 7177496 (2d Cir. Dec. 8, 2016) (Summary Order; Judges Livingston, Chin, Carney), the court clarified the scope of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, a federal statute that prohibits certain forms of discrimination. Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 provides, in pertinent part: All persons…
Read More 2d Circuit Clarifies Scope of Race Discrimination Statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1981