Blog

Below is the federal court complaint filed by Rita Walsh against the New York City Housing Authority on September 12, 2011 containing her allegations that she was not hired by the NYCHA as its first female bricklayer because of her gender. Her complaint – which seeks relief under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York…

Read More Plaintiff Alleges She Was Not Hired For Bricklayer Position Because of Her Gender
Share This:

In Nelson v. HSBC Bank USA (Sept. 13, 2011), the Appellate Division, Second Department clarified the standard governing “hostile work environment” discrimination claims – here, based on the plaintiffs’ race – brought under the NYC Human Rights Law.   Following a jury verdict for defendant, the appellate court ordered a new trial, finding that the jury…

Read More Court confirms breadth of hostile work environment claims under NYC Human Rights Law
Share This:

On September 9, 2011, federal judge Paul Crotty issued a decision in Torres v. Gristede’s Operating Corp., a class action asserting the non-payment of wages and overtime, finding that Gristede’s owner John Catsimatidis is an “employer” within the meaning of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, and hence is jointly…

Read More Court: Gristede’s Owner John Catsimatidis is an “Employer” For Purposes of the FLSA and New York Labor Law
Share This:

On August 23, 2011, plaintiff Westley Artope sued ex-model Paige Bluhdorn (and Paul Bluhdorn), alleging that after he rejected Paige’s sexual advances,  he was subjected to a hostile work environment and ultimately fired.  He also alleged federal and state wage/hour violations.  His federal court complaint: [scribd id=64113286 key=key-1eume2eq9ki2s0otlnac mode=list]

Read More Dog trainer sues ex-model for sex-based discrimination and wage/hour violations
Share This:

In Briggs v. Women in Need, Inc, 819 F.Supp.2d 119 (2011), the court denied defendant’s FRCP 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint alleging discrimination under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) by her nonprofit employer. The Facts Plaintiff advised her employer of her pregnancy in March 2007, went on medical leave due to her high-risk pregnancy…

Read More Plaintiff May Press Pregnancy Discrimination Claims Against Non-Profit Women in Need Inc.
Share This:

On August 30, 2011, Mayor Bloomberg signed into law amendments to the New York City Human Rights Law (specifically, to sections 8-102(18) and 8-107(3)(b) of the New York City Administrative Code) which effectively make it more difficult for an employer to refuse to accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs on the ground that the requested accommodation…

Read More Amendments to NYC Human Rights Law Provide Enhanced Protections Against Religious Discrimination in Employment
Share This:

On August 30, 2011, the National Labor Relations Board issued a final rule, entitled “Notification of Employee Rights Under the National Labor Relations Act“.  In sum, the final rule (which takes effect on November 14, 2011) requires employers to notify their employees of the employees’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act by posting a notice, establishes the…

Read More NLRB Issues Final Rule Regarding Employee Rights Under the NLRA
Share This:

In Rashada v. New York Post et al (NY Sup. August 11, 2011), 2011 Slip Op. 32234(U), Judge Scarpulla dismissed plaintiff’s defamation action against the New York Post and the author of an article allegedly suggesting that plaintiff – one of several imams at a mosque and a Department of Corrections employee – had “radicalized”…

Read More NY trial court dismisses defamation action – statements constituted opinion, not fact
Share This:

In EEOC v. Dresser Rand Co., 04-CV-6300 (W.D.N.Y. August 10, 2011), a New York federal court rejected the defendant’s argument that an employment discrimination plaintiff’s decision not to pursue additional training at a local community college resulted in a failure to mitigate his damages. Plaintiff, a Jehovah’s Witness, sued his employer alleging religious discrimination in violation…

Read More Mitigation under Title VII does not require re-education
Share This:
(212) 227-2100