June 2018

by

In Tsoflias v. Barclays Capital Inc., 2018 Ny slip Op 31184(U), 2018 WL 2971165 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 6, 2018), the court held that, in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Epic Sys. Corp. v Lewis, plaintiff’s claims of age and gender-based discrimination were subject to an arbitration agreement, and thus granted defendant’s…

Read More Age, Gender Discrimination Claims Against Barclays Capital Subject to Binding Arbitration, Court Holds
Share This:
by

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
Share This:
by

In Reveyosos v. Town Sports Intl., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 04441 (App. Div. 1st Dept. June 14, 2018), a jury issued a verdict for plaintiff on her disability discrimination claim under the NYC Human Rights Law. The trial court granted defendant’s motion to set aside the jury verdict as against the weight of the evidence…

Read More Disability Discrimination Jury Verdict for Plaintiff Remains; No Undue Hardship Shown
Share This:
by

From Matter of Stellar Dental Mgt. LLC v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 2018 NY Slip Op 04483 (App. Div. 4th Dept. June 15, 2018): We further conclude that substantial evidence supports SDHR’s determination that two of the complainants were subjected to unlawful retaliation. The record establishes that those complainants reported sexual harassment…

Read More State Division Upholds Finding of Retaliation
Share This:
by

From Matter of Stellar Dental Mgt. LLC v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 2018 NY Slip Op 04483 (App. Div. 4th Dept. June 15, 2018): We conclude that there is substantial evidence to support the determination that petitioner discriminated against each complainant by subjecting her to a sexually hostile work environment (see Matter of Father…

Read More Court Upholds State Division Findling of Hostile Work Environment Sexual Harassment
Share This:
by

In Kimball v. Village of Painted Post, 2018 WL 2944337 (2d Cir. June 11, 2018) (Summary Order), the court, inter alia, affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim. In discussing plaintiff’s allegation of a hostile work environment based on pornography in the office, the court explained: [Plaintiff] has failed to establish that any…

Read More Hostile Work Environment Claim Properly Dismissed; Allegations re Pornography Insufficient
Share This:
by

Today is “Flag Day,” which according to one source “commemorates the adoption of the flag of the United States on June 14, 1777 by resolution of the Second Continental Congress.” Some legal tidbits about Old Glory: The U.S. Flag Code, codified at Chapter 1 of Title 4 of the United States Code (4 U.S.C. § 1 et…

Read More Happy Flag Day 2018
Share This:
by

In Kobos v. Target Corporation et al, 15–cv-5573, 2018 WL 2943575 (E.D.N.Y. June 12, 2018), the court, inter alia, dismissed plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim. The court explained the legal standard: To establish a claim for a hostile work environment, a plaintiff must show “that the complained of conduct: (1) is objectively severe or pervasive—that…

Read More Hostile Work Environment Claim Dismissed; “Unprofessional” and “Upsetting” Conduct Insufficient
Share This:
by

In Emamian v. Rockefeller University, 07-cv-3919, 2018 WL 2849700 (S.D.N.Y. June 8, 2018) – a race/national origin discrimination case – the court held, inter alia, that the jury’s emotional distress damages award of $2 million was excessive, and remitted that award to $200,000. After providing a summary of the relevant “black-letter” law in this area, the…

Read More Court Remits Emotional Distress Damages Award in Employment Discrimination Case From $2M to $200K
Share This:
by

In Tantaros v. Fox News Network, LLC et al, 17-cv-2958, 2018 WL 2731268 (SDNY May 18, 2018), the court dismissed, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), plaintiff’s claims under the federal Wiretap Act, as well as intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff alleged, inter alia, “that Defendants physically surveilled her and secretly recorded her…

Read More Court Dismisses “Retaliatory Surveillance” Claim: Tantaros v. Fox News
Share This: