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
WILLIAMS, THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER, WAS NOT NEGLIGENT IN SLOWING DOWN FOR A WORK CREW AHEAD; THE WILLIAMS CAR WAS STRUCK FROM BEHIND BY A POLICE CAR PURSUING ANOTHER VEHICLE; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
MOTHER’S PETITION TO RELOCATE TO FLORIDA PROPERLY DENIED, INSUFFICIENT SHOWING THE MOVE WOULD BE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD.
THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) FALLING-OBJECT CASE; BRICK WORK WAS BEING DONE ON THE BUILDING ABOVE WHERE PLAINTIFF WAS STANDING AND PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A FALLING BRICK; THERE WAS NO SAFETY NETTING TO PROTECT AGAINST FALLING OBJECTS (FIRST DEPT).
Securities Did Not Pass Outside the Estate, Requirements of Transfer on Death Security Registration Act (TODSRA) Not Me
RESPONDENT CITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FOIL REQUEST WOULD INTERFERE WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT OR JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OR WOULD REVEAL A CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE; MATTER REMITTED FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE FOIL REQUEST WAS PROTECTED BY THE INTER- OR INTRA- AGENCY MATERIALS EXEMPTION (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S CONTEMPT CONVICTION FOR VIOLATING AN ORDER OF PROTECTION STANDS, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ORDER OF PROTECTION WAS BASED ON AN OFFENSE SINCE FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL (FIRST DEPT).
THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE QUI TAM ACTION ALLEGING THE VIOLATION OF THE NEW YORK FALSE CLAIMS ACT BY SETTING INTEREST RATES ON BONDS PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE DEFENDANT DID NOT SUBMIT ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS OF THE DEFECT WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S FALL; THE PHOTOGRAPHS AND THE TESTIMONY THAT THE DEFECT WAS ONE-INCH IN HEIGHT WAS NOT ENOUGH TO PROVE THE DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST 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

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...