Sexual harassment may occur in a variety of contexts, including in the employment, educational, and – as I will discuss here – the housing context. The New York City Human Rights Law, inter alia, makes it an “unlawful discriminatory practice” for owners and lessors “because of” the “actual or perceived” gender of any person to…Read More Can I Sue My NYC Landlord For Sexual Harassment?
In Canosa v. Harvey Weinstein et al, 2019 WL 498865 (S.D.N.Y. 2019), the court, inter alia, clarified that sexual harassment is a form of “discrimination” under federal law (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) and the New York State and City Human Rights Laws, and does not constitute an independent common-law tort.…Read More Sexual Harassment is a Statutory Claim, Not a Common-Law Tort, Court Explains
In Rice v. Smithtown Volkswagen, 2018 WL 3848923 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2018), the court held that plaintiff sufficiently pleaded claims for “quid pro quo” sexual harassment, hostile work environment sexual harassment, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (In this post I will discuss the court’s assessment of plaintiff’s “quid pro…Read More Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment Claim Stated Against Smithtown Volkswagen
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
In Kenney v. State of New York, Office of Children and Family Services, 16-cv-4522, 2017 WL 5633166 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2017), the court dismissed plaintiff’s “quid pro quo” sexual harassment claim.In the same opinion, the court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s “hostile work environment” claim; I discussed that aspect of the decision…Read More Court Dismisses “Quid Pro Quo” Sexual Harassment Claim; Tangible Employment Action Missing
In Patrizia Pelgrift, et al., Plaintiffs, v. 335 W. 41st Tavern Inc., et al., Defendants. Additional Party Names: David Sheeran, Iryna Lutsenko, Valeriya Kolisnyk, 2017 WL 4712482, at *10 (S.D.N.Y., 2017), the court held, inter alia, that a default judgment on plaintiff’s sexual harassment claims was warranted. The court summarized the law as follows: Under…Read More Sexual Harassment Default Judgment Warranted Under “Quid Pro Quo” and “Hostile Work Environment” Theories/Paradigms
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 judgmentKennedy 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
From Mikolaenko v. New York University, 2017 WL 4174928 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2017) (J. Batts): Defendant also moves to dismiss on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies because she first included allegations of a quid pro quo sexual relationship in her Complaint and did not include related allegations in her EEOC…Read More “Quid Pro Quo” Sexual Harassment Claim Was Sufficiently Presented to the EEOC, Court Holds
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.