You are here: / / PLAINTIFF RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT HIS SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND RETALIATION...
,

PLAINTIFF RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT HIS SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND RETALIATION CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had raised questions of fact on his sexual harassment and retaliation causes of action against his employer:

[Re: sexual harassment] Plaintiff testified that his supervisor, defendant Hall, made repeated sexual advances towards him, including reaching out to touch his face and holding his hand in an elevator while they were alone. She also initiated conversations that made him uncomfortable, telling him she had a “crush” on him, telling him she was single and twice inviting him to her home to repair “a hole” in her apartment. In one conversation, plaintiff claimed Hall said she had a tattoo, adding that “You have to undress me to see it.” Plaintiff further testified that after he rebuffed Hall’s sexual advances, she repeatedly brought him to the Human Resources manager’s office to complain about his work product and that she solicited complaints about him from other coworkers. Plaintiff claims that he complained to HR about Hall’s behavior in December. In January he was told that either he could resign or he would be fired. * * *

[Re: retaliation] Defendants submitted evidence of complaints about plaintiff’s brash demeanor, insensitive comments to coworkers, and poor work ethic, which demonstrate his difficulties following orders and getting along with his peers. By doing so, defendants satisfied their prima facie burden. In opposition, plaintiff relies on Hall’s offensive conduct, including her telling him, in sum and substance, that if they could not be together then plaintiff could not work around Hall, and defendants’ failure to adequately investigate his claims prior to his termination. Plaintiff’s assertions raise disputed issues of fact about whether there was a mixed motive to terminate his employment … . Franco v Hyatt Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 07522, First Dept 12-15-20

 

You might also like
PURSUANT TO THE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, PROPERTY OWNERS (LANDLORDS) MAY BE HELD VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE DISCRIMINATORY CONDUCT OF THEIR AGENTS IN DEALING WITH PROSPECTIVE TENANTS (FIRST DEPT).
UNDER THE FACTS, PRE-TRIAL REQUEST TO PROCEED PRO SE PROPERLY DENIED.
THE STATUTORY CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE IN CPLR 510(3) WERE NOT MET; THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
WHEN SERVICE OF PROCESS IS MAILED TO A BUSINESS ADDRESS, AS OPPOSED TO A RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS, THE ENVELOPE SHOULD NOT INDICATE THE CONTENTS ARE LITIGATION-RELATED; HERE THE DEFENDANT’S ADDRESS WAS BOTH HIS RESIDENTIAL AND HIS BUSINESS ADDRESS AND THE ENVELOPE INDICATED THE CONTENTS WERE LITIGATION-RELATED; THE RESIDENTIAL MAILING RULES APPLIED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT HAD WITHHELD PAYMENT ON THE CONTRACT AS AN OFFSET FOR THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES PROVISION OF THE CONTRACT; THE AWARD OF LIQUIDATED DAMAGES TO THE DEFENDANT THEREFORE CONSTITUTED A DOUBLE RECOVERY (FIRST DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF MODEL SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED PHOTOSHOOTS DONE WHEN SHE WAS 16 AND 17 FOR A SUNTANNING-PRODUCT MARKETING CAMPAIGN CONSTITUTED “SEXUAL PERFORMANCES” TRIGGERING THE EXTENDED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE RULES OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK REQUIRED THAT TIME WARNER MAINTAIN ONLY THE AREA 12 INCHES AROUND A METAL BOX COVER IN THE SIDEWALK, THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER TIME WARNER OR A PREDECESSOR CREATED THE DEFECT OR HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DEFECT OUTSIDE THE 12 INCH AREA, SUPREME COURT REVERSED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).
NO NOTICE OF ALLEGED SKIDDING AND SHAKING OF ESCALATOR, RES IPSA LOQUITUR NOT APPLICABLE.

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

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE FROM LEVEL TWO TO LEVEL ONE IN... THE HOMEOWNERS EXERCISED NO SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE INJURY-CAUSING WORK...