October 2019

In O’Rourke v. National Foreign Trade Council, No. 10104, 156502/16, 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 07489, 2019 WL 5232866 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept., Oct. 17, 2019), the court unanimously affirmed the lower court’s decision (by Supreme Court judge Alan Marin) to deny defendant’s motion to dismiss for gender discrimination and retaliation under the New York City Human…

Read More Complaint States Claim For Gender Discrimination Under the NYC Human Rights Law; Derogatory Comments About Women Were More Than “Petty Slights”

In a recent decision, Colon v. St. John’s Riverside Hospital, 19-cv-5846 (SDNY Oct. 15, 2019), the court dismissed plaintiff’s race discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The court summarized the law: To state an employment discrimination claim under Title VII or § 1981, “a…

Read More Court Dismisses Race Discrimination Complaint; Offers Guidance For Amended Complaint

In Sassi v. Mobile Life Support Servs., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 07305 (App. Div. 2nd Dept. Oct. 9, 2019), the court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal – see Sassi v. Mobile Life Support Services, Inc., NY Supreme Court, Dutchess County, Index No. 2016-51918, Decision and Order filed 12/15/16 – of plaintiff’s employment discrimination claim,…

Read More Court Affirms Dismissal of Conviction Discrimination Claim Under the NYS Human Rights Law

In Wallace v. Esper, 18-cv-6525, 2019 WL 4805813 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2019), the court, inter alia, denied plaintiff’s claim of age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). From the decision: Wallace has also “ple[d] sufficient facts … to plausibly support a minimal inference of ‘but-for’ causality between [her] age” and these adverse…

Read More Attorney’s ADEA Age Discrimination Claim Survives Dismissal

In Shakiri v. Subin Associates LLP, No. 650961/2019, 2019 WL 5028690 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Oct. 03, 2019), the court, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint, which alleges religious discrimination, national origin discrimination, and sexual harassment under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws. In her complaint, plaintiff…

Read More Sexual Harassment & Religious/National Origin Discrimination Claims Survive Dismissal

In Bistreich v City of New York, No. 160194/2016, 2019 WL 4569921 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Sep. 16, 2019), the court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s disability discrimination claim under the New York City Human Rights Law. Plaintiff – a former Legislative Director and Budget Director for the office of…

Read More Asperger’s-Afflicted Plaintiff Defeats Summary Judgment in Disability Discrimination Case

In Phoenix v New York State Dept. of Health, No. 151915/2015, 2019 WL 5150271 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Oct. 09, 2019), the court dismissed plaintiff’s constructive discharge and race discrimination claims. As to plaintiff’s constructive discharge claim, the court explained (citations omitted): To state a claim for constructive discharge, plaintiff must allege facts…

Read More Constructive Discharge & Discrimination Claims Dismissed Against NYS Dept. of Health

In Alexander v. Equinox Holdings LLC, No. 160323/2018, 2019 WL 4643772, 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 32830(U) (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Sep. 18, 2019), the court dismissed plaintiff’s discrimination/harassment claim asserted under the NYC Human Rights Law, NYC. Admin. Code § 8-101 et seq. (NYCHRL). Here, the events giving rise to plaintiff’s sex-based hostile…

Read More Off-Duty Employee’s NYCHRL “Customer Harassment” Claim Dismissed

In a recent case, Watson v. The Richmond University Medical Center et al, 14-cv-1033, 2019 WL 5087062 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2019), the court, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s Title VII race discrimination claim. From the decision (some citations omitted): [C]onstruing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, a…

Read More Race-Based Hostile Work Environment Claim Survives Summary Judgment; Court Cites “Humiliating” Duties