Employment Discrimination

by

In Farmer v. Dr. Lucia Patino, Optometrist, P.C., 2019 WL 110956 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 2019), the court dismissed plaintiff’s claim under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). It summarized the statute: The GINA restricts the circumstances under which an employer may request or use genetic information, including information about an individual’s “genetic tests, the genetic tests…

Read More Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) Claim Dismissed
Share This:
by

In Marino v. City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 09027 (App. Div. 1st Dept. Dec. 27, 2018), the court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint alleging employment discrimination. From the decision: Plaintiff’s timely allegations fail to state claims for employment discrimination (see Askin v Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 110 AD3d 621…

Read More City Not Responsible For Alleged Discrimination By Police Pension Fund, Court Holds
Share This:
by

In Diallo v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., 2019 WL 140728 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2019), the court, inter alia, adopted a Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to deny defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim. From the decision: As to the merits, Whole Foods’ argument on the hostile work environment claim presents a…

Read More Race-Based Hostile Work Environment Claim Survives Summary Judgment
Share This:
by

In Vitti v. Macy’s Incorporated, 17‐3493‐cv, 2018 WL 6721091 (2d Cir. Dec. 21, 2018) (Summary Order), the 2nd Circuit affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s employment discrimination claims against Macy’s Inc. and Clinique. In this case, plaintiff – who worked in the Clinique department of Macy’s Herald Square store in New York City – asserts claims of wrongful…

Read More Discrimination Claims Against Macy’s, Clinique…
Share This:
by

In Chau v. Granger Management LLC et al, 357 F. Supp. 3d 276, 2019 WL 120766 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2019), the court, inter alia, held that a non-NYC resident met the “geographic” requirement of the the NYC Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). The court explained the black-letter law: “In order for a nonresident to invoke the…

Read More Sexual Harassment Plaintiff Meets “Impact” Test of NYC Human Rights Law, Court Holds
Share This:
by

In Geffner v. Quanta Services, Inc., 2018 WL 6807388 (S.D.N.Y. 2018), the court, inter alia, found that plaintiff failed to state claim(s) of employment discrimination – based, e.g., on his religion – against his supervisor (Austin). The decision is instructive as to how and when individual liability for employment discrimination may be imposed under 42…

Read More Employment Discrimination Claims Not Stated Against Individual Supervisor, SDNY Holds
Share This:
by

In Rivas v. New York State Lottery, 2018 WL 6656390 (2d Cir. Dec. 18, 2018) (Summary Order), the court (inter alia) affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s retaliation claim. What makes this case arguably somewhat unique is that the alleged retaliation occurred after plaintiff left defendant’s employment. From the Order: The District Court did not err in…

Read More Post-Termination Retaliation Claim Dismissal Affirmed
Share This:
by

In Lonergan-Milligan v. New York State Office of Mental Health, 2018 WL 6605686 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2018), the court dismissed plaintiff’s Title VII sexual harassment (hostile work environment) claim. The law: A prima facie case of a hostile work environment involves two showings: (1) that the complained-of conduct ‘was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter…

Read More Hostile Work Environment Claim Dismissed; Conduct Was Neither “Severe” Nor “Pervasive”
Share This:
by

In Duarte v. St. Barnabas Hospital, 15-CV-6824, 2018 WL 4440501 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2018) – a disability discrimination case – the court held, inter alia, that a jury award of $750,000 for punitive damages was too high, and that $125,000 was more appropriate. The court explained, inter alia, that “[u]nder the [New York City Human Rights…

Read More Court Explains Remittitur of $750,000 Punitive Damages Award in Disability Discrimination Case
Share This: