You are here: / / Stray Remarks Doctrine Applied in Action Under New York City Human Rights...
,

Stray Remarks Doctrine Applied in Action Under New York City Human Rights Law

The First Department determined that the “stray remarks doctrine” applied to actions brought brought under the New York City Human Rights Law.  The court rejected the argument that a statement in an email written weeks after plaintiff’s termination was actionable, asserting the so-called “stray remarks doctrine:”

Plaintiff relies on one remark made in an email exchange that took place weeks after the decision to terminate him was made and that concerned the resolution of his union’s grievance following the termination. In the email, one of defendant’s employees responsible for making the decision to terminate plaintiff declined to reconsider the penalty because of the nature of plaintiff’s convictions and his concern about the liability that defendant would assume if plaintiff committed a similar crime while on company time. However, “[s]tray remarks such as [this], even if made by a decision maker, do not, without more, constitute evidence of discrimination” … .  Indeed, plaintiff did not demonstrate a nexus between the employee’s remark and the decision to terminate him… .

We decline to hold, as urged by plaintiff and amici, that the stray remarks doctrine may not be relied on in determining claims brought pursuant to the City Human Rights Law, even as we recognize the law’s “uniquely broad and remedial purposes” (Bennett, 92 AD3d at 34 [internal quotation marks omitted]). The doctrine is not inconsistent with the intentions of the law, since statements “constitute evidence of discriminatory motivation when a plaintiff demonstrates that a nexus exists between the allegedly discriminatory statements and a defendant’s decision to discharge the plaintiff” … . Godbolt v Verizon NY Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 01561, 1st Dept 3-11-14

 

You might also like
Conviction Reversed Because of Improper Cross-Examination by Prosecutor; Defendant Questioned About Boyfriend’s Criminal History and Her Employment History
Record Did Not Support Striking the Answer for the Spoliation of Evidence
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S INJURY WAS DUE TO DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO PROVIDE HIM WITH THE PROPER PROTECTIVE DEVICES PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION; THE DISSENT DISAGREED; A STACK OF CONCRETE BOARDS FELL OFF A TRUCK ONTO PLAINTIFF WHEN THE SKIDS UNDER THE BOARDS BROKE (FIRST DEPT).
CONTRACT ALLEGATIONS DUPLICATED FRAUD ALLEGATIONS, FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
Class Certification Should Have Been Granted; Plaintiffs Waived Statutory Treble Damages
ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT NEW YORK COMPANY IS A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF AN ISRAELI COMPANY, THE TWO ENTITIES OPERATED INDEPENDENTLY SUCH THAT NEW YORK COULD NOT EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER THE ISRAELI COMPANY, A QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE RE DEFAMATORY REMARKS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY DEFENDANT DOES NOT INSULATE THE DEFENDANT FROM A CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON BREACH OF A CONTRACTUAL NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT).
SUPREME COURT PROPERLY APPLIED THE “PIERCE THE CORPORATE VEIL CRITERIA” AND ASSESSED DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AGAINST THE DEFENDANT PARENT CORPORATION; THERE WAS A COMPREHENSIVE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).
SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO THE CLUB AND THE SECURITY COMPANY IN THIS THIRD PARTY ASSAULT CASE; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE CLUB COULD BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IN THE STREET IN FRONT OF THE CLUB, WHETHER THE CLUB WAS THE SPECIAL EMPLOYER OF THE BOUNCERS AND THEREFORE SUBJECT TO VICARIOUS LIABILITY, AND WHETHER THERE WAS DRAM SHOP ACT LIABILITY (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

“In Transit” Means Between Destinations, Even If “At Rest... Question of Fact Whether Owner of Servient State Had Duty to Maintain Easement...