Protected Activity

by

In Qorrolli v. Metropolitan Dental Associates, 2024 WL 5194887 (2d Cir. Dec. 23, 2024), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, inter alia, affirmed the lower court’s award of summary judgment to defendant on plaintiff’s claims of retaliation, on the ground that plaintiff did not engage in “protected activity.” From the decision: Finally,…

Read More Rejection of Sexual Advances Did Not Constitute “Protected Activity” For Retaliation Claim, 2nd Circuit Holds
Share This:
by

In Jordan v. City of New York, 23cv4962 (DLC), 2024 WL 4872186 (S.D.N.Y. November 22, 2024), the court held/confirmed that requesting a “reasonable accommodation” is not “protected activity” in connection with asserting a retaliation claim under the New York State Human Rights Law. From the decision: When deciding a question of state law, federal courts…

Read More Requesting a “Reasonable Accommodation” is Not “Protected Activity” Under the New York State Human Rights Law, SDNY Holds
Share This:
by

In Newton v. LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton Inc. et al, No. 23-CV-10753 (LAP), 2024 WL 3925757 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2024), the court, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s retaliation claim asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. From the decision: Focusing only on allegations that occurred after July…

Read More Title VII Retaliation Claim Dismissed; Refusal to Meet About Settlement of Legal Claims Was Not “Protected Activity”
Share This:
by

In Brunt-Piehler v. Absolute Software, Inc. et al, 6:16-CV-06313 EAW, 2024 WL 3765523 (W.D.N.Y. August 13, 2024), the court, inter alia, vacated a jury verdict in plaintiff’s favor on her retaliation claim under the New York State Human Rights Law. This decision is instructive as to the “protected activity” element of a retaliation claim. The…

Read More Retaliation Verdict Vacated, Absent Evidence of “Protected Activity”
Share This:
by

In Harlow v. Molina Healthcare, Inc., 5:20-CV-1382, 2024 WL 1126736 (N.D.N.Y. March 15, 2024), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment on her retaliation claims asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York State Human Rights Law. After summarizing the “black letter” law, the court…

Read More Retaliation Claim Survives Summary Judgment; Termination Followed Sexual Harassment Complaint
Share This:
by

In Clifton Park Apartments, LLC v. New York State Division of Human Rights, No. 2, 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 00793, 2024 WL 628036 (N.Y., Feb. 15, 2024), the New York Court of Appeals explained the “protected activity” and “adverse action” elements of a retaliation claim, in the context of a housing discrimination asserted under the…

Read More NY Court of Appeals Clarifies Retaliation Standard Applicable to Housing Discrimination Claims
Share This:
by

In Elgalad v. New York City Department of Education, et al., 2024 WL 621617 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2024), the court, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on his retaliation claims asserted under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws. After summarizing the “black letter” law as to this claim, the court…

Read More Teacher’s Retaliation Claims Survive Summary Judgment, in Part
Share This:
by

In Lazarine v. Allied Universal Event Services, No. 153143/2023, 2023 WL 4546517, 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 32374(U) (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County July 14, 2023), the court, inter alia, dismissed plaintiff’s claims of retaliation asserted under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws. From the decision: Counts IV, V, and VIII of…

Read More Retaliation Claims Dismissed Absent Allegation of “Protected Activity”
Share This:
by

In Ahmed v. Christine Wormuth, Secretary, Department of the Army, 2023 WL 2309776 (N.D.Cal., 2023), the court, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s retaliation claim asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This case illustrates the importance of clearly articulating, in one’s complaint, the “protected activity” at issue: The…

Read More Title VII Retaliation Claim Dismissed; Allegation That Plaintiff “Voiced Concerns,” Without More Detail, Held Insufficient
Share This:
by

In Estevez et al v. Berkeley College et al, 2022 WL 17177971 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 23, 2022), the court denied defendant’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions, but chastised plaintiff’s counsel for what it perceived as an attempt to mislead the court. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 provides, in part, that an attorney presenting a pleading,…

Read More Court Admonishes Lawyer for Perceived Misrepresentations in Connection With Retaliation Claim
Share This: