In Matter of Oz Trucking and Rigging Corp., No. 2018-09771, 2486/17, 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 09009, 2019 WL 6884935 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept., Dec. 18, 2019), the court confirmed a New York State Division of Human Rights determination that the complainant suffered sexual harassment/hostile work environment, as well as the award of $7,500 for mental anguish and…
Read More Sexual Harassment Determination UpheldIn a recent letter dated July 30, 2019, several New York lawmakers criticize Ernst & Young’s apparent intention to require sexual harassment claimant Karen Ward to pursue her claims in arbitration as opposed to in court. This letter highlights and underscores the evils of forced arbitration, particularly in the sexual harassment context. From the letter: ……
Read More NY Lawmakers Underscore Unfairness of Forced Arbitration in Letter to Ernst & YoungSexual harassment cases, no doubt, involve sensitive subject matter. It is not surprising, then, that a plaintiff asserting such claims in court wishes to proceed anonymously. A recent decision illustrates the principles governing when and under what circumstances this may be done. The case is Doe v. Gong Xi Fa Cai, Inc. d/b/a Alta Restaurant,…
Read More Sexual Harassment Plaintiff May Not Proceed Anonymously, Court Concludes Upon Application of 10-Factor TestIn 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 JudgmentIn 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 JudgmentSexual 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 PatronsA 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 PolicyIn 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 ArbitrationIn 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