PART 35 - Nymag

More documents

Recommendations

Info

AD2d 76, 81,692 NYS2d 304 [lst Dept 19991, a@ 94 NY2d 659,709 NYS2d 861 [2000]), and the ciiterion becomes “whellier the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether he has stated one” (Guggenheinzer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268,275,401 NYS2d 182 [1977]; see nl~o Lcnn v Mrirtirrez, 84 N Y2d 83, 88, 61 4 NYS2d 972 [ 19941; Ark Bryant Pm-k Corp. v Brycliit Prirlc Restorrition Corp., 285 AD2d 143, 150, 730 NYS2d 48 [lst Dept ZOOl]). Heniiignn‘s First nncl Second Causes of Action Against Centro atid Burrell Whether Hennigan’s first cause of action for failure to provide a nondiscriminatory work -- enviroiiment, which is essentially a hostile work envirZnm&€ claim, may be mGniKed-tiinis 011 - . -_ .__. __ whether Bm-rell’s alleged conduct constitutes discriminatory conduct actionable by Hennigaii. To s~ipport a claim of hostile work environment, a plaintiff must allege facts indicating that “the workplace is permeated with ‘discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult,’ that is ‘sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment”’ (Forrest v Jewish Giiilrf for the Blind, 3 NY3d 295, 3 10, 786 NYS2d 382 [2004]). A plaintiff must allege either that a single incident was extraordinarily severe, or that a series of incidents were “sufficicntly continuous and concerted” to have altered the conditions of her working enviroi~ment (Perry v Ethan Allen, Inc., 115 F3d 143, 149 [2d Cir 19971, qziotrng Cnrrcro I? New York Cily Housing Auth., 890 F2d 569, 577 [2d Cir 13891; Kotcher v Rosa nrzd Sitllivati Appliance Cenler, Inc., 957 F2d 59 [2d Cir 19921 [the incidents must be repeated and continuous; isolated acts or occasional episodes will not merit reliefl).4 Evidence of harassment directed at other co-workers can be relevant to an employee’s 4 The Court notes that the “virtually identical ... federal standards for actionable sexual harassment are used in deterininmg claims brought under the New York Human Rights Law” (Espnillat v Brdl OrigindJ, Inc , 227 AD2d 266, 642 NYS2d 875 [l’’ Dept 19961 citing Zvetter’ v Brozilinn Nut/. Superintendency, 833 F Supp 1089, 1095). 19 .__ __
- - - ... --- oivti claim of hostile work environment discrimination (Leibovitz v New York City Trans. Auth., 252 F3d 179 [2d Cir 20013). “Because the crucial inquiiy focuses on the nature of the workplace environimen t as a whole, a plaintiff who herself experiences discriminatory harassment need not be the target of other instances of hostility in order for those incidents to support her claim” (Crm v Coach Stores, Inc., 202 F3d 560, 570 [2000], Whidbee v Gurzirrelli Food Specialties, Inc., 223 F3d 62, 70 n. 9 [2d Cir 2000][citing Cruz for proposition that environment as a whole is relevant to individual plaintiffs hostile work environmeiit claim]; Perry v Ethan Alleiz, Inc., 115 F3d 143, 151 [2d Cir 1997][evideni
Page 1 and 2: lNED ON 312312009 SUPREME COURT OF
Page 3 and 4: I - By separate Burrell also iiiove
Page 5 and 6: -_ ~ though the bar was already ful
Page 7 and 8: causes of action, plaintiffs allege
Page 9 and 10: 321 1 (a)(7) dismissal motion. . .
Page 11 and 12: - - action against Burrell should b
Page 13 and 14: Plain tiFfs also argue that they ha
Page 15 and 16: - .- teniiinalion and constructive
Page 17 and 18: second causes of action are against
Page 19: inotion should be rejected by the C
Page 23 and 24: Heiinigan WBS present during at lea
Page 25 and 26: opportunities provided by the emplo
Page 27 and 28: of [the] job” (Stepheuson v Hotel
Page 29 and 30: I einployee gave two weeks' notice]
Page 31 and 32: . .- -. Consequently, the allegatio
Page 33: days of entry; and it is further OR

PART 35 - Nymag

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?