Author: mjpospis

In Woolcock v. Lukes-Roosevelt, No. 518301/2016, 2019 WL 1206356 (N.Y. Sup Ct, Kings County Mar. 11, 2019), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s hostile work environment sexual harassment claim under the NYC Human Rights Law. From the decision: [D]efendant fails to set forth that a reasonable victim of discrimination would…

Read More Hostile Work Environment Sexual Harassment Claim Against Mt. Sinai St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Survives Summary Judgment

In Nokaj v. North East Dental Management, LLC et al, 16-cv-3035, 2019 WL 634656 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2019), the court (inter alia) denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim of “aiding and abetting” discrimination (sexual harassment) under the New York State Human Rights Law. The court holds that plaintiff may maintain an “aiding…

Read More Aiding & Abetting Sexual Harassment Claim, Based on Supervisor Inaction, Survives Summary Judgment

In Walsh v. A.R. Walker & Co., Inc., No. 155009/16, 2018 WL 6505409, 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 33159(U) (Sup Ct, New York County Dec. 07, 2018), the court, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s sexual orientation-based hostile work environment claim under the New York City Human Rights Law. The court summarized…

Read More Sexual Orientation Hostile Work Environment Claim Survives Summary Judgment

Sexual harassment is not limited to scenarios where both the perpetrator and the victim are both employed by the same entity. In some cases, the harasser can be a non-employee – such as a customer. Whether the employee/victim’s employer may be held liable depends on the circumstances. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulations…

Read More Sexual Harassment by Customers, Clients, and Patrons

A new statute, New York Labor Law § 201-g (effective October 9, 2018), requires every employer to adopt a “sexual harassment prevention policy” that meets certain minimum requirements. The statute provides, inter alia: Such model sexual harassment prevention policy shall: (i) prohibit sexual harassment consistent with guidance issued by the department in consultation with the division of human…

Read More New York Requires Employers to Adopt Sexual Harassment Prevention Policy

In Alexander v. Possible Productions, Inc., 17-cv-5532, 2018 WL 4804638 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2018), the court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims of retaliation and sex-based discrimination/sexual harassment. In sum, plaintiff – who was employed by Showtime as a body double for the character Alison on the TV show “The Affair” – alleges that…

Read More Body Double’s Sexual Harassment Claims Survive Dismissal, Not Subject to Arbitration

In Morris v. New York City Health and Hospital Corp., 09-CV-5692, 2018 WL 4762247 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2018), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s sexual harassment (hostile work environment) claim, with respect to one alleged harasser. As to plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim, the court explained: After assessing the…

Read More Sexual Harassment Claims Survive Summary Judgment Against NYC Health & Hospital Corp.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it an unlawful discriminatory practice for an employer to discriminate against an employee because of (among other protected characteristics) “sex.” The term “sexual harassment” typically conjures up images of a male boss acting inappropriately towards a female subordinate. This is one, but not the only,…

Read More Same Sex Sexual Harassment

“Sexual harassment” is one type of unlawful discrimination based on “sex” under various statutes, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The term “quid pro quo” is a Latin phrase that means “this for that”. In the context of employment discrimination/sexual harassment law, it has a specific meaning. “Sexual harassment claims are…

Read More “Quid Pro Quo” Sexual Harassment: What Is It?

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 3093968…

Read More Court Decision Illustrates When A “Hug” Crosses The Line And Becomes Actionable Sexual Harassment