Statutory Interpretation

by

Smiling man in suit with striped yellow tie Smiling man in suit with striped yellow tie

In McCabe v 511 West 232nd Owners Corp., No. 91, 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 06290, 2024 WL 5126078 (N.Y., Dec. 17, 2024), the New York Court of Appeals held, as a matter of first impression, that a co-op board’s refusal to transfer a building unit to a shareholder’s partner because they were not married did…

Read More NY Court of Appeals: Co-Op Board’s Declining to Treat Deceased Shareholder’s Unmarried Partner as “Spouse” Did Not Constitute Discrimination Based on “Marital Status” Under the New York City Human Rights Law
Share This:
by

Man in suit with pink bow tie Man in suit with pink bow tie

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

Smiling man in glasses and bow tie Smiling man in glasses and bow tie

In Savage v. Township of Neptune, 313 A.3d 65, 257 N.J. 204 (N.J. May 7, 2024), the New Jersey Supreme Court held that under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), the non-disparagement provision at issue was unenforceable against public policy. From the decision: In this appeal, we consider whether a “non-disparagement provision” in a…

Read More NJ Supreme Court Holds “Non-Disparagement” Provision in Employment Discrimination Agreement Was Unenforceable as Against Public Policy
Share This:
by

United States flag with stars and stripes United States flag with stars and stripes

In Crawford v. David Ratner, No. 952052/2023, 2023 WL 8810507 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Dec. 20, 2023), the court, inter alia, denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims – arising from a series of alleged sexual assaults, sexual harassment and retaliatory conduct between 2010 and 2011 by the defendant – under the…

Read More Adult Survivors Act (ASA) Revives NYC Human Rights Law Claims, in Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Arising From 2010-2011 Conduct, Court Rules
Share This:
by

Post thumbnail

In Famuyide v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. et al, 2023 WL 5651915, (D.Minn. August 31, 2023), the court, applying the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA), denied the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. That statute provides, in pertinent part: Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, at the…

Read More Court Denies Chipotle’s Motion to Compel Arbitration of Sexual Harassment Claim; Dispute Arose After “Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021”
Share This:
by

Scuba diver wearing full gear underwater Scuba diver wearing full gear underwater

On March 3, 2022, President Biden signed into law the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021, codified at 9 U.S.C. § 402 (EFAA). This law, in sum, invalidates any pre-dispute mandatory arbitration clause as it applies to plaintiffs alleging claims of or related to workplace sexual harassment. In a recent…

Read More Court Considers Temporal Applicability of the “Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021”
Share This:
by

Snow-covered city street with buried cars Snow-covered city street with buried cars

In a recent decision, Thaler v. Vidal, 2022 WL 3130863 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 5, 2022), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that only a human being – and not, as asserted in this case, an artificial intelligence – may be an “inventor” within the meaning of the Patent Act (Title 35…

Read More Sorry, Robots: An “Inventor” on a Patent Application Must be a Human Being
Share This:
by

New York City skyline at golden sunset New York City skyline at golden sunset

Today, in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, No. 17-1618 (June 15, 2020) (J. Gorsuch),[1]This case was decided together with Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda, No. 17-1623 (Second Circuit) and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. EEOC, No. 18-107 (Sixth Circuit). the U.S. Supreme Court held that the prohibition of discrimination based on “sex”…

Read More U.S. Supreme Court Rules 6-3 That Title VII Prohibits Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Transgender Status
Share This:
by

Pospis Law, PLLC logo and address Pospis Law, PLLC logo and address

In Babb v. Wilkie, 2020 WL 1668281 (U.S. April 6, 2020), the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the federal-sector provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 88 Stat. 74, 29 U.S.C. § 633a(a). That section provides, in relevant part: “All personnel actions affecting employees or applicants for employment who are at least…

Read More SCOTUS Interprets the ADEA’s Federal-Sector Provision
Share This:
by

Dark green PL monogram logo Dark green PL monogram logo

In Artis v. District of Columbia, 2018 WL 491524 (U.S. Sup. Ct. Jan. 22, 2018), the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted a federal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d), which provides the timeframe for when state claims must be re-filed in state court after their dismissal from a federal action. In many cases, particularly employment discrimination cases,…

Read More SCOTUS Interprets Statute Relating to Timeframe For Refiling State Law Claims (Including For Employment Discrimination) When Federal Court Dismisses Them
Share This:
© 2026 Pospis Law, PLLC. All Rights Reserved.