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…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 EmployeeIn 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 HPIn Salvat v. Construction Resources Corp., 2017 WL 6210849 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2017), a sexual harassment case, the court, inter alia, denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss, and held that plaintiff pleaded enough to sufficiently allege that that entity was her “joint employer”, and that it failed to respond adequately to her complaints. As to…
Read More Sexual Harassment Plaintiff Sufficiently Alleges Joint Employment and Failure to Respond to Plaintiff’s Complaints