Appellate Division Affirms Summary Judgment For Cosmic Diner, Applying Continuing Violations Doctrine, Where Employee Failed to Present Any Specific Instances of Harassment Within Statute of Limitations Period

In Mejia v T.N. 888 Eighth Ave. LLC Co., the Appellate Division First Department affirmed summary judgment for the employer, applying the Continuing Violations doctrine, because according to the court, the employee failed to testify or put forward other evidence of the dates of the alleged harassment within the 3-year statute of limitations period applicable to New York City Human Rights Law, although the employee had done so for instances falling outside the statute of limitations period.

0 Comments

Failure to Engage in Interactive Process Forecloses Summary Judgment for Employer Under New York City Human Rights Law Claims, Court Says

The New York Court of Appeals, the highest court in the State of New York, held in Jacobsen v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. that any "impairment" constitutes a disability under City HRL, and the burden is on employer, not employee, to show unavailability of accommodation and to show accommodation would pose an undue hardship on employer. Further the court held that summary judgment for an employer is foreclosed where employer fails to engage in interactive process in respect to requested accommodation. But, employer’s failure to engage in interactive process does not compel finding in favor of employee on summary judgment. Rather, ”that failure poses a formidable obstacle to the employer’s attempt to prove that no reasonable accommodation existed…

0 Comments

Employees Residing Outside New York City May Bring New York City Human Rights Law Claims, Court Says

New York's highest court, the New York Court of Appeals held in Hoffman v Parade Publs. that a person residing outside New York City may bring a claim under the New York City Human Rights Law if the impact of the claim was felt within New York City. The court held as follows: We hold that the impact requirement is appropriate where a nonresident plaintiff invokes the protection of the City Human Rights Law. Contrary to Hoffman's contention, the application of the impact requirement does not exclude all nonresidents from its protection; rather, it expands those protections to nonresidents who work in the city, while concomitantly narrowing the class of nonresident plaintiffs who may invoke its protection.

0 Comments

Book a free consultation with Liszka and Gray, LLC by filling out the form below and one of our lawyers will e-mail you to arrange a time to chat shortly.