Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

by

Both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay Act of 1963 prohibit – in addition to discrimination based on specified criteria/characteristics – “retaliation” for engaging in “protected activity”. In certain cases, “protected activity” can be the litigation itself. In the matter of Kerrie Campbell v. Chadbourne & Parke LLP,…

Read More Counterclaim Alleged to be Retaliatory in Gender Discrimination Class Action Lawsuit Against Chadbourne & Parke Law Firm
Share This:
by

In Green v. Avis Budget Grp., Inc., No. 11-CV-00269V(F), 2017 WL 35452 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 2017), the court dismissed plaintiff’s employment discrimination (disparate treatment), hostile work environment, and retaliation claims. Here I’ll discuss the court’s evaluation of the “adverse employment action” element of the prima facie case[1]“To establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination…

Read More Criticism of Work, Failure to Provide Desired Schedule (Etc.) Were Not “Adverse Employment Actions”
Share This:
by

In Baez v. Anne Fontaine USA, Inc., No. 14-CV-6621 (KBF), 2017 WL 57858 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2017), the Southern District of New York denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York State and City Human Rights Laws, her hostile…

Read More Retaliation & Hostile Work Environment Claims, Based on Complaints of Bra-Less “Rumor” and “Office Drama”, Survive Summary Judgment
Share This:
by

In employment discrimination cases, assuming a plaintiff sufficiently/plausibly alleges one or more claims in their complaint, the next procedural battleground is (usually) “summary judgment”. You can think of summary judgment as the last procedural hurdle – often after discovery is complete and all the facts are “in” – standing between a plaintiff and the holy grail…

Read More Surviving Summary Judgment: Sexual Harassment (Hostile Work Environment)
Share This:
by

In Guerra v. Murphy, No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 WL 7480405 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 29, 2016), the court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s disparate-treatment employment discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as he failed to plausibly allege the existence of an “adverse employment action.” The court also dismissed plaintiff’s hostile work…

Read More Absence of “Adverse Employment Action” Results in Dismissal of Title VII Disparate-Treatment Employment Discrimination Claims
Share This:
by

In Washington v. Borough of Manhattan Cmty. Coll., No. 16 CIV. 6168 (PAE), 2016 WL 7410717 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 21, 2016), the Southern District of New York dismissed plaintiff’s claims under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws against the Borough of Manhattan Community College, since she did not comply with the notice of…

Read More Court Dismisses State/City Human Rights Law Employment Discrimination Claims Against NYC Community College (BMCC) Due to Failure to File Notice of Claim
Share This:
by

In order to hold an employer liable for a hostile work environment, a plaintiff needs to establish two elements: The existence of a hostile work environment (i.e., sufficiently “hostile” conduct connected a protected characteristic); and A specific basis for imputing the hostile work environment to the employer (vicarious liability). A recent case, Ward v. Shaddock, No.…

Read More Hostile Work Environment Created by Co-Worker Not Imputable to Entity Employer
Share This:
by

In Johnson v. J. Walter Thompson U.S.A., LLC, No. 16-CV-1805 (JPO), 2016 WL 7217847 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2016), the court denied defendants’ FRCP 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiff’s sex-based hostile work environment and retaliation claims. Here I’ll discuss the court’s evaluation of plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim. Plaintiff alleged, among other things, that defendant Gustavo…

Read More Sex-Based Hostile Work Environment Claim Continues Against J. Walter Thompson; Plaintiff Alleged (e.g.) Rape Comments, Unwanted Touching, and “Bossy” Remarks
Share This:
by

We’ve seen one judge warn a lawyer not to call their adversary an “asshole” in private correspondence. Now we have a decision imposing a $4,700 fine/sanction on a lawyer for (e.g.) calling their adversary a “racist” during a deposition. In Scott-Iverson v. Indep. Health Ass’n, Inc., No. 13-CV-451V(F), 2016 WL 7320067 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2016), the…

Read More Court Imposes $4,700 Fine on Lawyer For (e.g.) Calling Adversary a “Racist” During Employment Discrimination Deposition
Share This:
by

In McCullough v. Xerox Corp., No. 12-CV-6405L, 2016 WL 7229134 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2016), an upstate federal district court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to her Equal Pay Act (EPA) claim arising out of her employment as a Human Resources Manager. The court summarized the law applicable to plaintiff’s unequal pay claims under the…

Read More Equal Pay Act Claim Survives Summary Judgment, Continues Against Xerox
Share This: