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
TRIAL COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE SET ASIDE VERDICT IN MALICIOUS PROSECUTION ACTION.
Acclaimed Photographer’s Surreptitious Taking of Photographs of Plaintiffs Through Apartment Windows Did Not Violate Plaintiffs’ Right to Privacy as Codified in Civil Rights Law 50 and 51–Art Is Exempt from the Reach of Those Statutes
PROPERTY OWNERS WERE AWARE THE SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF THE RESTAURANT HAD BEEN HOSED DOWN BY RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES ON A COLD DAY; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ICY-SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).
APPELLATE DIVISION REDUCED DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE USING ITS PLENARY POWER, DESPITE THE FACTS THAT (1) THE SENTENCE WAS WITHIN PERMISSIBLE LIMITS, (2) THE SENTENCING COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION, AND (3) DEFENDANT HAD AN EXTENSIVE CRIMINAL HISTORY (FIRST DEPT).
Affidavit Supporting Motion to Strike Did Not Demonstrate Good Faith Effort to Resolve Issue with Opposing Counsel
GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 5-321 VOIDS A LEASE PROVISION ABSOLVING THE LANDLORD OF LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE TO A TENANT’S PROPERTY CAUSED BY THE LANDLORD’S NEGLIGENCE, BUT DOES NOT VOID A LEASE PROVISION ABSOLVING THE LANDLORD OF LIABILITY FOR THE TENANT’S LOST PROFITS CAUSED BY THE LANDLORD’S NEGLIGENCE (FIRST DEPT).
PETITIONER DID NOT HAVE THE STATUTORILY REQUIRED CLOSE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE RESPONDENT IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING; FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE BOOM TRUCK WAS 700 FEET FROM WHERE IT WAS LOADED WHEN THE BOOM STRUCK AN OVERHEAD SIGN, THE TRUCK WAS AT THE WORK SITE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LABOR LAW, ALTHOUGH THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION ADDRESSED THE POSITION OF THE BOOM BUT NOT THE NATURE OF THE ACCIDENT, THE PROVISION WAS BROADLY WORDED AND RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ON THE LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION 1ST 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...