“Joint Employer” Doctrine

by

In Perez v. RJR Maintenance Group Inc., No. 652938/2023, 2024 WL 1532761 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Apr. 5, 2024), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims of discrimination asserted under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws. In reaching its conclusion, the court employed the “joint employer”…

Read More Applying “Joint Employer” Doctrine, Court Denies Motion to Dismiss National Origin Discrimination Claims
Share This:
by

In Weiss v. Premier Technologies, 2023 WL 3314691 (W.D.N.Y. May 9, 2023), the court held that plaintiff sufficiently alleged that AT&T was plaintiff’s “joint employer.” This decision provides helpful guidance regarding the application of this doctrine. From the decision: “The standard for whether an entity is a joint employer for Title VII and [NYHRL] purposes…

Read More Plaintiff Plausibly Alleges “Joint Employment” Doctrine Against AT&T
Share This:
by

In Toledo v. Brend Restoration, LLC et al, No. 21 Civ. 882 (GBD) (SN), 2023 WL 3381249 (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 2023), the court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s sexual harassment claim asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This result turns on the application of the “joint employer”…

Read More Title VII Sexual Harassment Claim Dismissed Against Entity Held Not to be “Joint Employer”
Share This:
by

In Pittman v. Yantiss et al, No. 151274/2020, 2022 WL 2238886 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County June 15, 2022), the court, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss her claims of retaliation in violation of the New York State and City Human Rights Laws. (I addressed the court’s decision denying defendants’ motion to dismiss…

Read More Retaliation Claim Sufficiently Alleged: Pittman v. Yantiss et al
Share This:
by

In Felder v. United States Tennis Association, 2022 WL 663145 (2d Cir. March 7, 2022), the Second Circuit considered the question of what a Title VII plaintiff must adequately allege to plead the existence of an employer-employee relationship pursuant to the “joint employer” doctrine. The alleged facts, in sum/brief: a security company (AJ Security) hired…

Read More Second Circuit Clarifies Application of the “Joint Employer” Doctrine to Title VII Discrimination Claims
Share This:
by

In Montiel v. Degeorgio, No. 155126/2019, 2022 WL 783951 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Mar. 15, 2022), the court, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss employment discrimination claims asserted by plaintiff under the New York City and State Human Rights Laws. Among other things, plaintiff – a 38 year-old Hispanic male employed as…

Read More Discrimination, Hostile Work Environment Claims Sufficiently Alleged Against Boat Basin Café
Share This:
by

In Griffith v. Coney Food Corp. d/b/a Checkers et al, 2020 WL 4748452 (E.D.N.Y. August 17, 2020) – a gender/pregnancy discrimination case – the court, inter alia, held that plaintiff alleged sufficient facts that defendant (Checkers) is her “joint employer” under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws. The court summarized the contours…

Read More Gender/Pregnancy Discrimination Plaintiff Overcomes Motion to Dismiss Based on “Joint Employer” Doctrine
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 Felder v. United States Tennis Association Inc., 17-cv-5045, 2018 WL 5621484 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2018), the court, inter alia, explained and applied the :”joint employer” doctrine under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In sum, plaintiff (a 50 year old black man) was employed by a security company (AJ Security) that…

Read More Court Explains “Joint Employer” Doctrine; Finds it Inapplicable to Claim by US Tennis Association Subcontractor Employee
Share This:
by

In Gilani v. Hewlett-Packard Company, 15-CV-5609, 2018 WL 4374002 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2018), the court addressed the issue of whether Hewlett-Packard was plaintiff’s “employer” for purposes of Title VII and the ADEA. Plaintiff was, pursuant to employment contract, “formally” employed by a company called Insight Global and worked at an HP location. Because of the…

Read More “Temporary” Employee May Pursue Discrimination Claims Against HP
Share This: