Sexual Harassment

by

In Delever v One Taste Inc., No. 161172/2018, 2019 WL 3457260 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County July 31, 2019), the court dismissed plaintiff’s various claims, including for sexual harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud, and breach of contract. In sum, plaintiff claimed (inter alia) that defendant’s sales director promised her that she could…

Read More Sexual Harassment Claim Dismissed; Plaintiff Was Not an “Employee”
Share This:
by

In a recent letter dated July 30, 2019, several New York lawmakers criticize Ernst & Young’s apparent intention to require sexual harassment claimant Karen Ward to pursue her claims in arbitration as opposed to in court. This letter highlights and underscores the evils of forced arbitration, particularly in the sexual harassment context. From the letter:…

Read More NY Lawmakers Underscore Unfairness of Forced Arbitration in Letter to Ernst & Young
Share This:
by

In Babbitt v. Koeppel Nissan, Inc., 2019 WL 3296984 (EDNY July 23, 2019) – an employment discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation case brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – the court ruled on the parties’ respective motions to compel discovery. One issue addressed by the court – which has become…

Read More Social Media Discovery Compelled (in Part) in Sexual Harassment Case
Share This:
by

In a recent New York State Court filing, petitioner Andrea Tantaros – in the matter of Tantaros v. Fox News Channel, LLC et al, Index No. 156936/2019 – seeks a Temporary Restraining Order precluding Respondents from continuing to arbitrate Petitioner’s sexual harassment allegations, to grant her request for a preliminary and permanent injunction staying the…

Read More Andrea Tantaros Attempts to Utilize NY’s New Anti-Arbitration Law in New Filing
Share This:
by

In Doe v. Gong Xi Fa Cai, Inc. d/b/a Alta Restaurant, 2019 WL 3034793 (SDNY July 10, 2019) – in which plaintiff asserts claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. and other statutes for alleged sexual discrimination and retaliation – the court denied plaintiff’s motion to…

Read More Sexual Harassment Plaintiff May Not Proceed Anonymously, Court Concludes Upon Application of 10-Factor Test
Share This:
by

In Bugtani v. Dish Network LLC, 2019 WL 2914158 (EDNY 2019), the court, inter alia, held that plaintiff’s employment discrimination and sexual harassment claims under Title VII of the New York State and City Human Rights Laws were subject to arbitration. From the decision: The arbitration agreement that the plaintiff signed is broad, see Johnston…

Read More Employment Discrimination, Sexual Harassment (Non-SOX) Claims Are Subject to Arbitration, Court Holds
Share This:
by

In Latif v. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, 2019 WL 2610985 (SDNY June 26, 2019), the court held that plaintiff’s claims of employment discrimination were subject to mandatory arbitration. In this case, plaintiff “alleges that, beginning in the fall of 2017, he became the target of, inter alia, inappropriate comments regarding his sexual orientation, inappropriate…

Read More Arbitration Compelled in Sexual Harassment Case, Notwithstanding New State Law
Share This:
by

In Cruz v. G-Star Inc. et al, 17-CV-7685, 2019 WL 2521299 (S.D.N.Y. June 19, 2019), an employment discrimination case involving (inter alia) allegations of sexual harassment, the court imposed sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) on defendants for engaging in spoliation of evidence (electronically-stored information, or ESI). From the decision: Here, the circumstances…

Read More Court Imposes Spoliation Sanctions in Sexual Harassment Case
Share This:
by

In Desouza v. Office of Children and Family Services, 2019 WL 2477796 (E.D.N.Y. June 12, 2019), the court clarified differences between/among the various theories available to a plaintiff in a gender discrimination/sexual harassment case. It explained (paragraphing altered): Though claims challenging disparate treatment, quid pro quo sexual harassment, and hostile work environment are all claims of…

Read More Court Clarifies Difference Between “Hostile Work Environment” and “Disparate Treatment” Gender Discrimination Claims; Absence of “Adverse Employment Action” Results in Dismissal
Share This:
by

In Alexander v. Program Development Services, Inc., 18-cv-1433, 2019 WL 2436436 (EDNY June 10, 2019), the court, inter alia, dismissed plaintiff’s hostile work environment sexual harassment claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. From the decision (paragraphing altered): Plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim based on Fiddler’s sexually explicit and profane conduct…

Read More “Vulgar” Conduct Not “Bad Enough” to Make Out Hostile Work Environment Sexual Harassment Claim
Share This: