New York Appellate Division Overturned Grant of Summary Judgment to Emblem Health Services on Disability Discrimination Claims Brought Under New York City Human Rights Law

In Watson v Emblem Health Servs., the Appellate Division First Department overturned the lower court's decision to grant summary judgment to the employer on their disability discrimination claim under the New York City Human Rights Law. In that case, the court held: "giving plaintiff the benefit of all favorable inferences which may reasonably be drawn, we conclude that she proffered sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the reason put forth by defendant for terminating her employment was merely pretextual and that the grant of summary judgment in defendant's favor was not warranted." In this case, the employer asserted that it terminated the employee while she was on medical leave recovering from a brain tumor…


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.


Denying Motion to Dismiss New York City Human Right Claims, Appellate Division Affirms Plaintiff Need Only Give Fair Notice of Nature of Claim and Grounds

In Vig v New York Hairspray Co., L.P., the New York Appellate Division First Department upheld the New York Supreme Court decision denying the employer's motion to dismiss the employee's disability discrimination claims under the New York City Human Rights Law. The New York Supreme Court held as follows: "In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action (CPLR 3211 [a] [7]), the court is required to accept as{**67 AD3d at 145} true the facts as alleged in the complaint, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference and strive to determine only whether the facts alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory (Sokoloff v Harriman Estates Dev. Corp., 96 NY2d 409, 414 [2001]). In…


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.