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 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

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 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

In Patrizia Pelgrift, et al., Plaintiffs, v. 335 W. 41st Tavern Inc., et al., Defendants. Additional Party Names: David Sheeran, Iryna Lutsenko, Valeriya Kolisnyk, 2017 WL 4712482, at *10 (S.D.N.Y., 2017), the court held, inter alia, that a default judgment on plaintiff’s sexual harassment claims was warranted. The court summarized the law as follows: Under…

Read More Sexual Harassment Default Judgment Warranted Under “Quid Pro Quo” and “Hostile Work Environment” Theories/Paradigms

In Kennedy v. Federal Express Corp. and Alvin Beal, as Aider and Abettor, 2017 WL 4422514 (2d Cir. Oct. 5, 2017) (Summary Order), the Second Circuit (inter alia) vacated the district court’s judgment[1]Kennedy v. Fed. Express Corp., No. 5:13-CV-1540, 2016 WL 5415774 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2016) dismissing plaintiff’s sexual harassment and sex discrimination claims. (It also…

Read More Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment Claim Against FedEx Resurrected

From Mikolaenko v. New York University, 2017 WL 4174928 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2017) (J. Batts): Defendant also moves to dismiss on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies because she first included allegations of a quid pro quo sexual relationship in her Complaint and did not include related allegations in her EEOC…

Read More “Quid Pro Quo” Sexual Harassment Claim Was Sufficiently Presented to the EEOC, Court Holds

In Welch v. Bill Cram, Inc. et al, 2017 WL 3676040 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2017), the court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claims of quid pro quo sexual harassment, hostile work environment sexual harassment, and retaliation (but granted it with respect to his gender discrimination/disparate treatment claim. With respect to plaintiff’s quid…

Read More Sexual Harassment & Retaliation Claims Continue Against Upstate Auto Dealer Bill Cram, Inc.

A recent Tenth Circuit decision, Jones v. Needham Trucking LLC et al, 16-6156 (10th Cir. May 12, 2017), illustrates the close relationship between the court-recognized “hostile work environment” and “quid pro quo” forms of sexual harassment. The district court granted defendants’ partial motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies for…

Read More 10th Circuit Holds That Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment Claim Was Exhausted in EEOC Filing