You are here: / / Criteria for Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Against Employer Explained
,

Criteria for Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Against Employer Explained

The Third Department determined plaintiff had raised questions of fact about whether her employer was aware of and condoned the alleged harassment, allowing her sexual harassment suit to go forward.  The court explained the relevant analytical criteria:

Pursuant to Executive Law § 296 (1) (a), it is “an unlawful discriminatory practice [] [f]or an employer . . ., because of an individual’s . . . sex, . . . to discriminate against such individual in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment” … . An employee may succeed on a sexual harassment claim pursuant to Executive Law § 296 (1) (a) upon establishing that he or she is a member of a protected group, is subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment based on his or her gender that affects a term, condition or privilege of his or her employment, and that the employer “knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take remedial action” … . An employer will be liable for “an employee’s discriminatory act [where] the employer became a party to it by encouraging, condoning, or approving it,” and the term condonation includes, as relevant here, “[a]n employer’s calculated inaction in response to discriminatory conduct” … . Tidball v Schenectady City Sch Dist, 2014 NY Slip Op 08092, 3rd Dept 11-20-14

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT BUILDING OWNER NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN TOXIC TORT (MOLD EXPOSURE) ACTION ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS GROUNDS.
CONFINEMENT IN A RESIDENTIAL MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT UNIT (RMHU) FOR 17 HOURS A DAY, WITH AT LEAST SEVEN HOURS OF OUT-OF-CELL TIME PER DAY, FOR MORE THAN THREE DAYS, DOES NOT VIOLATE THE HUMANE ALTERNATIVES TO LONG-TERM SOLITARY CONFINEMENT ACT (HALT ACT) (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT WAS NOT A NECESSARY EMPLOYEE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW, NO OBLIGATION TO TRANSFER HER AFTER HER POSITION WAS ABOLISHED.
HEAVY BARN DOORS WHICH HAD BEEN TAKEN OFF THE HINGES FELL ON PLAINTIFF AS HE DELIVERED SHEETROCK TO THE BARN WHICH WAS BEING CONVERTED TO A MUSIC STUDIO; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE DOORS PRESENTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION AND CONSTITUTED AN ELEVATION-RELATED HAZARD AND WHETHER THIS WAS A COMMERCIAL PROJECT TO WHICH THE HOMEOWNER EXEMPTION DID NOT APPLY (LABOR LAW 200 AND 240(1)) (THIRD DEPT).
THE INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS MUST BE DISMISSED AND THE RELATED SENTENCES VACATED (THIRD DEPT).
BUSINESS PURSUITS EXCLUSION IN THE HOMEOWNER’S INSURANCE POLICY DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE FIRE WOULD HAVE OCCURRED IRRESPECTIVE OF THE OPERATION OF THE BUSINESS, A RESPITE HOME FOR ELDERLY AND SPECIAL NEEDS ADULTS, THREE OF THE RESIDENTS DIED IN THE FIRE STARTED BY CHILDREN PLAYING IN THE GARAGE (THIRD DEPT)
COUNTY COURT DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS OF FACT FOR DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE IN THIS SORA RISK LEVEL PROCEEDING; ORDER REVERSED AND MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).
HYDE, THE DRIVER OF THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER, LOST CONTROL AND CROSSED INTO THE PATH OF AN ONCOMING COUNTY BUS; HYDE WAS FATALLY INJURED AND PLAINTIFF HAD NO MEMORY OF THE ACCIDENT; THE COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE BUS DRIVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Denial of Pistol Permit Application Was Based Upon a Misinterpretation of Penal... Family Court Properly Issued an Order of Protection Against the 13-Year-Old...