Faragher/Ellerth Defense

In Pardovani v. Crown Building Maintenance Co., 2020 WL 2555280 (SDNY May 20, 2020), the court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s race-based hostile work environment claim. From the decision: Pardovani offers evidence to suggest that, far from an occasional occurrence, the word “nigger,” and derivations thereof, were used frequently and offensively in…

Read More Race-Based Hostile Work Environment Claims Survive; Evidence Included the Use of the “N-Word”
Share This:

In Barbini v. First Niagara Bank, N.A., 16-cv-7887, 2019 WL 1922041 (S.D.N.Y. April 29, 2019), the court held, inter alia, that defendant waived the attorney-client privilege in connection with asserting the Faragher/Ellerth defense to plaintiffs’ sexual harassment claims. Under that defendant may escape liability if it can show two things, namely, (1) the employer exercised reasonable care…

Read More Invocation of Faragher/Ellerth Defense in Sexual Harassment Case Waives Attorney-Client Privilege, Court Finds
Share This:

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
Share This:

Sexual harassment cases are fact- and context-specific. There is no “bright line rule” as to when a comment or a touch “cross the line” from non-actionable to actionable. Such claims can be based on comments, physical touching, or some combination of the two. A recent decision, Batten v. Global Contact Services, LLC, 15-cv-2382, 2018 WL…

Read More Sexual Harassment / Hostile Work Environment Based on “Hug” Was Actionable, Court Holds
Share This:

In MacCluskey v. University of Connecticut Health Center, 2017 WL 6463200 (2d Cir. Dec. 19, 2017) (Summary Order), the Second Circuit affirmed the lower court’s judgment following a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff on her sexual harassment (hostile work environment) claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court framed…

Read More Sexual Harassment Jury Verdict Upheld; Co-Worker’s Sexual Harassment Imputable to Employer
Share This:

In Lamarr-Arruz & Ansoralli v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 15-cv-04261, 2017 WL 4280690 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2017), the court rejected the defendant’s reliance on the so-called “Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense” to plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.[1]I wrote about the court’s evaluation of the first element of plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim under section 1981…

Read More Faragher/Ellerth Defense Inapplicable to Plaintiff’s Hostile Work Environment Claim Under 42 U.S.C. § 1981
Share This:

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
Share This:

In Lamarr-Arruz & Ansoralli v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 15-cv-04261, 2017 WL 4280690 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2017), the court denied defendant CVS’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Here I will focus…

Read More Race-Based Hostile Work Environment Claims Survive Summary Judgment; Court Clarifies Scope of 42 U.S.C. § 1981
Share This:

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.
Share This:

In Burgos v. Works, No. 13-CV-704S, 2017 WL 2403305, at *8–9 (W.D.N.Y. June 2, 2017), the court (inter alia) denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s race and sex-based hostile work environment, race and sex-based adverse-action discrimination, and retaliation claims.[1]However, it dismissed plaintiff’s age-based hostile work environment and discrimination claims under the Age Discrimination…

Read More Race and Sex-Based Hostile Work Environment Claims Survive Summary Judgment
Share This:
(212) 227-2100