You are here: / / Crude Conduct Not Motivated by Petitioners’ Gender/Case of Same Sex Discrimination N...
,

Crude Conduct Not Motivated by Petitioners’ Gender/Case of Same Sex Discrimination Not Made Out

The Third Department determined a case of “same sex” sex discrimination had not been made out.  The petitioners (Bargy and Colon) are male.  The conduct complained of related to the supervisor’s (Andross’) bringing a woman to the hotel room in which all three men were staying during a construction project and having sex with her.  After a dispute between the petitioners and the woman, the supervisor fired them:

Here, neither the written complaints nor testimony of Bargy or Colon set forth any allegations or indication of how Andross’ conduct was motivated by their gender or that their grievances to petitioner were ignored because of their gender.  The ALJ’s decision does not refer to any proof supporting a finding that complainants’ gender was relevant to, or a reason for, the conduct.  Of the recognized paths for showing same-sex discrimination, the only one even arguably applicable is harassment based on gender-stereotyping.  However, the ALJ made no such finding.  … We fully agree that Andross’ conduct was crude, coarse and grossly unprofessional; nevertheless, in the absence of proof of gender-based discrimination, such conduct does not establish a claim.  We are constrained by the record to conclude that there is not substantial evidence that the conduct was caused by or related in any relevant fashion to complainants’ gender … . Matter of Arcuri v Kirkland…, 516735, 3rd Dept 1-9-14

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH THERE WAS DIRECT EVIDENCE DEFENDANT OWNED THE CAMERA WHICH WAS SET UP TO VIEW THE VICTIM’S BEDROOM, THERE WAS NO DIRECT EVIDENCE IT WAS THE DEFENDANT WHO ACTUALLY PLACED THE CAMERA ON THE NEIGHBOR’S PROPERTY; THERFORE THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN; CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF, WHO IS DEFENDANT’S SON, FELL FROM A LADDER WHEN ATTEMPTING TO INSPECT A DAMAGED CHIMNEY ON DEFENDANT’S RENTAL PROPERTY, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE OR A VOLUNTEER, WHETHER THE INSPECTION WAS COVERED BY THE LABOR LAW, AND WHETHER DEFENDANT SUPERVISED PLAINTIFF’S WORK PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6), 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NO QUESTION PLAINTIFF’S CAR HYDROPLANED AND SLID INTO DEFENDANT’S LANE, DEFENDANT INCLUDED PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY IN HIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHICH RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT HOW LONG PLAINTIFF’S CAR WAS IN DEFENDANT’S LANE BEFORE IT WAS STRUCK (THIRD DEPT).
UNDER THE STIPULATED FACTS, THE DEFENDANT’S TRAGIC ERROR, MISTAKING THE VICTIM FOR A DEER, DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE, NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
ONCE A COURT SENTENCES A DEFENDANT TO SHOCK INCARCERATION, THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION (DOCCS) DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE THE DEFENDANT IS NOT ELIGIBLE; APPEAL HEARD AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (THIRD DEPT).
THE DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF MINORITY AND WOMEN’S BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ERRONEOUSLY IGNORED THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT THE HEARING BEFORE AN ADMINSTRATIVE LAW JUDGE WHICH DEMONSTRATED PETITIONER MET THE CRITERIA FOR A WOMEN-OWNED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (WBE) (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS NOT ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION WORK COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) WHEN A BRIDGE FORM HE WAS UNLOADING FELL ON HIM, PLAINTIFF MADE A SUFFICIENT SHOWING OF LONG-ARM JURISDICTION TO WARRANT DISCOVERY (THIRD DEPT).
Slip and Fall On Sidewalk Near Place of Employment Was Not a Work-Related Accident

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2024 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Defense Counsel Should Have Been Present During Exchange Between Judge and Juror... Trial Judge’s Failure to Conduct an Inquiry Concerning a Juror’s Conduct...