In Stern v. State University of New York et al, 2018 WL 4863588 (EDNY Sept. 30, 2018), the court, inter alia, dismissed plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim. The court summarized the well-established law in this area: To establish a hostile work environment under Title VII …, a plaintiff must show that ‘the workplace is permeated…
Read More Hostile Work Environment Claim Not Sufficiently Alleged Against SUNYA 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 ClassIn 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 TerminationIn Alexander v. Possible Productions, Inc., 17-cv-5532, 2018 WL 4804638 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2018), the court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims of retaliation and sex-based discrimination/sexual harassment. In sum, plaintiff – who was employed by Showtime as a body double for the character Alison on the TV show “The Affair” – alleges that…
Read More Body Double’s Sexual Harassment Claims Survive Dismissal, Not Subject to ArbitrationIn Casarella v. New York State Department of Transportation, 2018 WL 4372674 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 13, 2018), the court, inter alia, held that plaintiff plausibly alleged a hostile work environment claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. “To establish a hostile work environment claim, a plaintiff must produce enough evidence to show…
Read More Hostile Work Environment Claim Survives Dismissal; Anti-Italian Slurs Were “Pervasive”From Casarella v. New York State Department of Transportation, 2018 WL 4372674 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 13, 2018): Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged he is part of a protected class and that he was qualified for his position to satisfy the motion to dismiss standard. (Compl. ¶¶ 25–29.) However, whether Plaintiff sufficiently alleged that he was subject to…
Read More Plaintiff Plausibly Alleges Title VII National Origin Discrimination ClaimIn Calise v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, 17-cv-791, 2018 WL 4350247 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2018), plaintiff, a white woman, asserted claims of race discrimination – based on alleged mistreatment by her boss, who is black – under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C.…
Read More Title VII Race Discrimination Claim Survives Against NYS Dept. of Motor VehiclesIn 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 VolkswagenIn 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 VolkswagenIn a recent decision, Wolfinger v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., 17-cv-1710, 2018 WL 3637964 (E.D.N.Y. July 31, 2018), the court, inter alia, explained and clarified what, exactly, a plaintiff must allege to sufficiently plead a failure-to-accommodate claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court explained: A plaintiff bringing a failure-to-accommodate claim…
Read More Court Clarifies “Failure to Accommodate Disability” Employment Discrimination Claim: Wolfinger v. ConEd