Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 02-17-2023

Case Style:

Jamie Friederick v. Passford, Inc., et al.

Case Number: 1:21-cv-02066

Judge: Jennifer L. Rochon

Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Manhattan County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:








Click Here to Watch How To Find A Lawyer by Kent Morlan


Click Here For The Best New York City Civil Rights Lawyer Directory


If no lawyer is listed, call 918-582-6422 and MoreLaw will help you find a lawyer.



Defendant's Attorney: Robin Jean Gray

Description: New York City, New York civil rights lawyer represented Plaintiff, who sued Defendants on Job Discrimination (Unlawful Employment Practices) theories.





Federal Courthouse - New York City, New York


Federal Courthouse - New York City, New York


MoreLaw Legal News For New York City





Plaintiff Jamie Friederick brought this action against her former employer, Defendant Passfeed, Inc., its owner and CEO, Richard Wang, and her former supervisor, Atilla (“Dennis”) Sary, alleging sexual harassment, unlawful termination, and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), N.Y. Exec. Law § 296, and the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”), N.Y.C. Admin. Code Title 8, § 8-107.

To establish a retaliation claim under Title VII and the NYSHRL, a plaintiff “must show (1) participation in a protected activity; (2) that the defendant knew of the protected activity; (3) an adverse employment action; and (4) a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.” Jute v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp., 420 F.3d 166, 173 (2d Cir. 2005) (quoting McMenemy v. City of Rochester, 241 F.3d 279, 282-83 (2d Cir. 2001)). “As with discrimination claims, at the motion to dismiss stage, ‘the allegations in the complaint need only give plausible support to the reduced prima facie requirements that arise under McDonnell Douglas in the initial phase of [a Title VII and NYSHRL] litigation.'” McHenry, 510 F.Supp.3d at 66 (quoting Duplan v. City of New York, 888 F.3d 612, 625 (2d Cir. 2018)). Therefore, for a retaliation claim to survive a motion to dismiss, “the plaintiff must plausibly allege that: (1) defendants discriminated-or took an adverse employment action-against [her], (2) because [s]he opposed any unlawful employment practice.” Duplan, 888 F.3d at 625. “Sexual harassment by an employer or supervisor is an unlawful practice, and an employee's refusal is a means of opposing such unlawful conduct.” Hughes, 304 F.Supp.3d at 447-48.[9]...

Outcome:
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff states a claim for sexual harassment under Title VII as to Passfeed, under the NYSHRL as to Sary, and under the NYCHRL as to Passfeed and Sary. Additionally, she states a claim for retaliation under Title VII as to Passfeed, and under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL as to all three defendants. The Court hereby dismisses the following claims: Plaintiff's NYSHRL sexual harassment claims as to Passfeed; her NYSHRL and NYCHRL sexual harassment claims as to Wang; and her aiding and abetting claims against all defendants.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's first, second, fourth, and seventh causes of action survive in their entirety. Plaintiff's third cause of action survives based on sexual harassment as to Sary, but is dismissed to the extent it is based on sexual harassment as to Passfeed and Wang. The sixth cause of action survives based on sexual harassment as to Passfeed and Sary, but is dismissed to the extent it is based on sexual harassment as to Wang. The fifth and eighth causes of action in her complaint are dismissed entirely.

STIPULATION OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the parties and/or their respective counsel(s) that the above-captioned action is voluntarily dismissed, with prejudice against the defendant(s) Passfeed, Inc., Atilla Sary, Richard Wang and without costs pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Document filed by Jamie Friederick. Proposed document to be reviewed and processed by Clerk's Office staff (No action required by chambers)...(Kirschenbaum, Gregory) (Entered: 02/16/2023)

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: