Employment Discrimination

Below is the complaint recently filed in New York state court by three female plaintiffs against various Merrill Lynch entities.  More information on this (for example) here and here. Plaintiffs allege discrimination in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), following the non-prejudicial dismissal of those claims from plaintiffs’ federal lawsuit.  (You can…

Read More Lawsuit: “Boys Club” Alive and Well at Merrill Lynch

A recent Southern District decision, Brown v. City of New York, outlines conduct that could easily form a roadmap for a corporate sexual harassment training course (in the “what not to do” sense). There, New York City employee Sheila Brown sued the City of New York, alleging (under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964…

Read More Conduct of Aggressive, Masturbating Misogynistic Co-Worker Results in Denial of Summary Judgment for Defendant on Sexual Harassment Claims

A gender discrimination claim may lie where, for example, an employer takes an adverse action against an employee based on preconceived notions about women’s roles (so-called “gender stereotyping”). In the Eastern District’s recent decision in Apicella v. Rite Aid, the plaintiff was a pharmacist who claimed that defendant engaged in gender discrimination under Title VII, the Equal…

Read More Adverse Action Based on “Gender Stereotyping” Supports Discrimination Claim

In Najjar v. Mirecki, 11-cv-5138 (SDNY July 2, 2013), the Southern District of New York held that a pro se plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to various claims of discrimination. This case illustrates the difference between the heightened “but for” and lessened “mixed motive” causation standards, as well as the differences between the…

Read More Age/Disability Discrimination Case Illustrates Difference Between “But For” and “Mixed Motive” Causation Standards

In Cadet v. Deutsche Bank Securities, 11-cv-7964, 2013 WL 3090690 (SDNY June 18, 2013), decided on June 18, 2013, the Southern District of New York (McMahon, J.) denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff’s race discrimination claims brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. 1981, but dismissed his…

Read More Plaintiff’s Title VII and Section 1981 Race Discrimination Claims Survive in Part

Today the U.S. Supreme Court held, in Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, that retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must meet the more rigorous “but for” standard of causation applied under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.   The Court, focusing on the text, history, and structure…

Read More U.S. Supreme Court Raises Causation Standard For Title VII Retaliation Claims

Today the U.S. Supreme Court decided, in Vance v. Ball State University, which employees are “supervisors” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  I previously wrote about the case here. Whether the alleged discriminator/harasser is the plaintiff’s “supervisor” or “co-worker” is critical: Under Title VII, an employer’s liability for ……

Read More U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Who Is A Title VII “Supervisor”

A case recently decided by the Eastern District of New York, Smith v NYC Health and Hosp Corp., 10-cv-714 (EDNY June 18, 2013), illustrates the somewhat difficult task faced by employment discrimination plaintiffs and confirms that not all workplace adversity is actionable. In short, the law does not impose a “general civility code which prohibits all…

Read More Court Rejects Plaintiff’s Hostile Work Environment and Retaliation Claims

In Martino v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 105 AD3d 575 (App. Div. 1st Dept Apr. 18, 2013), the First Department held that New York’s “conviction discrimination” law (NY Correction Law Article 23-A, §§ 750-755) does not protect an employee from discipline/termination due to convictions and arrests incurred while they are employed. The court explained: Defendant…

Read More First Department Holds That New York’s “Conviction Discrimination” Law Does Not Protect Employee Where Conviction Occurs During Employment