New York Appellate Division Upholds Summary Judgment in Favor of NYU School of Medicine on Age Discrimination Claim Under New York City Human Rights Law

In Hamburg v New York Univ. Sch. of Medicine, the New York Appellate Division First Department upheld summary judgment for employer, holding that older employee had failed to demonstrate their was a triable issue of fact as to whether the employer's stated reason for termination was a pretext for age discrimination. The employer put forward that it had terminated the older employee because it was undergoing restructuring and retained department employees who had research experience of a similarly situated age as plaintiff. The employer also admitted that it had hired younger employees after the older employee's termination, but those younger employees had demonstrated research experience credentials, among other things.

0 Comments

New York Appellate Division Affirms Denial of Summary Judgment for Employer Under New York City Human Rights Law Age Discrimination Claims

In DeFreitas v Bronx Lebanon Hosp. Ctr., New York Appellate Division First Department affirmed the denial of summary judgment for the employer, holding that the employee demonstrated that issues of fact existed as to whether employer's stated reason for termination was false or unworthy of credence on claims of age discrimination brought under the New York City Human Rights Law, among others. The employer's cited reason for termination of the employee was "budgetary reasons", despite evidence that they had thereafter hired younger employees. Employer claimed that employee's position was eliminated, but employer's only evidence to demonstrate this was a chart created after employee's termination. Thus, fact issue remained as to whether recently hired younger employees replaced older employee, among others.

0 Comments

Unlike Claims of Age Discrimination Under the Federal ADEA, Mixed-Motive Causation Standard Applies to Claims Brought Under New York City Human Rights Law, Court Says

In Weiss v. JPMorgan Chase & Company, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York held that the causation standard under the New York City Human Rights Law differs from that of the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, stating as follows: "The causation standards for Weiss' age discrimination claims under the ADEA and NYCHRL are different as a matter of law. Under the ADEA, Weiss must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that age was a "but-for" cause of JPMorgan's adverse employment decision. A Price Waterhouse jury instruction will not be available for Weiss' ADEA claim. Under the NYCHRL, however, Weiss need only prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his age was…

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.