You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN...
, ,

PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were triable issues of fact in this employment discrimination case:

Plaintiff, an African American female, raises triable issues of fact whether her October 2017 termination (adverse employment action) was in retaliation for her verbal complaints (protected activity) concerning racist comments defendant Annie Liu allegedly uttered at work … . A question of fact exists as to whether plaintiff complained in July or August 2017. If plaintiff’s testimony is credited, the time frame between the discriminatory comments, plaintiff’s complaints, and her firing is evidence of a causal connection between the protected activity and her termination two months later … . Contrary to defendants’ argument, it is unclear from the record whether an intervening event occurred to dispel an inference of a causal relationship. Moreover, issues of fact also exist as to whether defendants’ proffered explanation for terminating plaintiff’s employment was pretextual … . Cancel v Global Fertility & Genetics, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 00811, First Dept 2-8-22

 

You might also like
AFTER BEING TOLD THE PREMISES WAS NOT DEFENDANT’S RESIDENCE, THE PROCESS SERVER DID NOT EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE TO DETERMINE WHERE DEFENDANT RESIDED BEFORE RESORTING TO NAIL-AND-MAIL SERVICE; THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT VACATED (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER TENANT ENTITLED TO RESCIND LEASE BECAUSE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY PROHIBITED TENANT’S USE OF THE PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES.
Sanctions for Discovery Noncompliance and Spoliation
IN A TRESPASS INVESTIGATION, DETAINING DEFENDANT AND RETAINING HIS ID TO CHECK WHETHER HAD, AS HE CLAIMED, VISITED HIS GIRLFRIEND AT A SPECIFIED APARTMENT IN THE COMPLEX WAS NOT A SEIZURE.
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD THE COURT WARNED HIM OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF THE PLEA.
PEDESTRIAN IN A CROSSWALK STRUCK FROM BEHIND IS NOT COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT AS A MATTER OF LAW.
Operating a Scaffold for the Benefit of an Enumerated Activity Done by Others (Caulking) Entitles Scaffold Operator to Coverage Under Labor Law 240 (1)
THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE APPLIES EVEN WHERE A NEW ACTION HAS BEEN COMMENCED AND CONSOLIDATED WITH A PRIOR ACTION (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

CLASS CERTIFICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE TENANTS IN THIS RENT-OVERCHARGE... THE FALSE IMPRISONMENT CAUSE OF ACTION WAS UNTIMELY BECAUSE IT ACCRUED WHEN...