Summary Judgment for Kingsbrook Jewish Medical Center in Pregnancy Discrimination Case

In Lefort v. Kingsbrook Jewish Med. Ctr., the Supreme Court, New York County dismissed Lefort's discrimination claims under the New York City Human Rights Law on summary judgment. Some highlights from the opinion include a nice summary of the standards for summary judgement of a discrimination claim: Turning next to the merits of the case, in considering the underlying motion, it is well established that summary judgment is a drastic remedy and is particularly disfavored in discrimination cases since "discrimination is rarely so obvious or its practices so overt that recognition of it is instant and conclusive, it being accomplished usually by devious and subtle means." Ferrante v. American Lung Ass'n, 90 NY2d 623, 631 (1997). The non-moving party's version…


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…


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.


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.