Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment

In Canosa v. Harvey Weinstein et al, 2019 WL 498865 (S.D.N.Y. 2019), the court, inter alia, clarified that sexual harassment is a form of “discrimination” under federal law (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) and the New York State and City Human Rights Laws, and does not constitute an independent common-law tort.…

Read More Sexual Harassment is a Statutory Claim, Not a Common-Law Tort, Court Explains

In Morris v. New York City Health and Hospital Corp., 09-CV-5692, 2018 WL 4762247 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2018), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s sexual harassment (hostile work environment) claim, with respect to one alleged harasser. As to plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim, the court explained: After assessing the…

Read More Sexual Harassment Claims Survive Summary Judgment Against NYC Health & Hospital Corp.

In Rice v. Smithtown Volkswagen, 2018 WL 3848923 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2018), the court held that plaintiff sufficiently pleaded claims for “quid pro quo” sexual harassment, hostile work environment sexual harassment, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (In this post I will discuss the court’s assessment of plaintiff’s “quid pro…

Read More Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment Claim Stated Against Smithtown Volkswagen

What is “The Truth”? The President of the United States’ lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, has been (rightly) criticized and mocked for saying that “Truth Isn’t Truth”. What the heck does that mean? Is this just another loony iteration of “alternative facts?” Maybe. The issue of what “The Truth” is has arisen many times. Some have observed that “The…

Read More “The Truth”

In a recently-filed lawsuit, captioned Lockwood v. CBS Radio Inc., Joseph Benigno et al (NY Supreme Ct. Kings Cty. Index 514650/2018, July 17, 2018), plaintiff alleged, inter alia, “that the terms, conditions and privileges of her employment relationship with Defendants … were adversely affected because of her sex” and “that she was subjected to sexual…

Read More Sexual Harassment Complaint Filed Against CBS Radio Et Al

In a recent decision, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Draper Development LLC, 15-cv-877, 2018 WL 3384427 (N.D.N.Y. July 11, 2018) – a quid pro quo sexual harassment case – the court denied the parties’ (including defendant’s) motion for summary judgment. This case arose from a the denial of employment of two female applicants (J.J. and A.R.) and…

Read More “Sex For Job” Text Message Supports Sexual Harassment Claim; Summary Judgment Denied

In Collymore v. City of New York et al, 16-cv-8270, 2018 WL 3014093 (S.D.N.Y. June 14, 2018), the court, inter alia, dismissed plaintiff’s sexual harassment claim. “Title VII recognizes two forms of sexual harassment: direct discrimination (or ‘quid pro quo’) and ‘hostile workplace environment.’ … In addition to pleading abusive or offensive conduct, it is…

Read More Sexual Harassment Claim Dismissed; Touching Was Not “Because Of” Sex

In Perez v. United Pharm USA Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 30273(U) (Sup. Ct. Suffolk Cty. Dkt. No. 12-30974 Jan. 19, 2018), the court, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s sexual harassment claims. The court summarized plaintiff’s evidence as follows: Plaintiff testified that during her period of employment she was constantly subjected…

Read More Sexual Harassment Claims Against United Pharm USA et al Survive Summary Judgment

In Kenney v. State of New York, Office of Children and Family Services, 16-cv-4522, 2017 WL 5633166 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2017), the court dismissed plaintiff’s “quid pro quo” sexual harassment claim.[1]In the same opinion, the court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s “hostile work environment” claim; I discussed that aspect of the decision…

Read More Court Dismisses “Quid Pro Quo” Sexual Harassment Claim; Tangible Employment Action Missing