Precedents and Decisions

Precedents and Decisions

Court-tested. Jury-tested. Appeal-tested.

We have obtained Second Circuit precedent, federal and state jury verdicts, and published decisions that other courts now cite in employment cases, including the Second Circuit's cat's paw retaliation ruling in Vasquez v. Empress Ambulance Service.

Many firms can send a demand letter. Fewer can point to decisions that helped shape employment law, each earned through motion practice, depositions, trial, and appellate work handled in house.

Key Takeaways

Second Circuit precedent: In Vasquez v. Empress Ambulance, the Second Circuit adopted cat's paw retaliation and extended it to a nonsupervisory employee.
Federal jury verdict: In Pardovani v. Crown Building Maintenance, we obtained a $1.8 million federal jury verdict for a race-based hostile work environment, including $1 million in punitive damages.
WARN Act class action revived: In Roberts v. Genting New York, the Second Circuit vacated summary judgment and revived WARN Act claims involving 177 laid-off employees.
NYCHRL doctrine: In Crump v. New York City Housing Authority, a New York County decision addressed retaliation, vicarious liability, and after-acquired evidence under the City Human Rights Law.
Trial through appeal: In Smart v. USA Labor for Hire, we won at trial and defended the verdict before the Second Circuit.

By the numbers

We have represented employees only since 2011 and have handled more than 9,500 employment matters, litigated approximately 2,000 of them in court, recovered more than $360 million for employees, and litigated against more than 550 distinct management-side defense firms.

Our attorneys have appeared before more than 110 United States District Judges and more than 70 United States Magistrate Judges, including a presence before nearly every currently sitting District Judge in the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York. A firm that tries cases appears before the bench. A settlement operation does not.

Summary of cases

A single index of the named verdicts, appellate rulings, and published decisions below. Citation counts are current as of July 2026.

Case	Court	Year	Result	What it established
Vasquez v. Empress Ambulance	2d Cir.	2016	Reversed, claim reinstated	Cat's paw retaliation extended to a nonsupervisory employee
Roberts v. Genting New York	EDNY / 2d Cir.	2023	Summary judgment vacated, WARN claims revived	WARN Act operating-unit standard for 177 laid-off workers
Sooroojballie v. Port Authority	EDNY / 2d Cir.	2020	Liability and punitives affirmed, ~$400K after remittitur	Emotional distress framework, related-acts admissibility
Smart v. USA Labor for Hire	EDNY / 2d Cir.	2024	Verdict affirmed on appeal, recovery over $425K	Trial through appeal in a harassment and retaliation case
Pardovani v. Crown Building Maintenance	SDNY	2023	$1.8M jury verdict ($1M punitive)	Race-based hostile work environment and punitive damages
Johnson v. STRIVE	SDNY	2013	Verdict for plaintiff (compensatory reduced on remittitur)	No race-based exception for workplace slurs
Fisher v. Mermaid Manor	EDNY	2016	Unanimous verdict, $75K after remittitur	Race-based hostile work environment, social media as evidence
Roberts v. UPS	EDNY	2015	$100K verdict sustained	NYCHRL sexual orientation discrimination and punitive damages
Echevarria v. Insight Medical	SDNY	2014	$50K retaliation verdict sustained	Title VII and NYCHRL retaliation
Fields v. Greenthal	SDNY	2014	$250,000 verdict	Disability discrimination and retaliation
Grant v. Pexie Enterprises	NY Sup., Queens	2022	$112,000 unanimous verdict	Short tenure is not a bar to recovery
Crump v. NYCHA	NY Sup., NY County	2020	Summary judgment defeated	NYCHRL standards, retaliation, after-acquired evidence
Vasquez v. Manhattan Physician Group	NY Sup., NY County	2018	First impression	NYCHRL public accommodation extended to patients
Santana v. Yonkers City School District	NY Sup., Westchester	2023	Summary judgment denied	Pretext on race and retaliation under NYSHRL
Faruque v. JPMorgan Chase	EDNY	2026	Arbitration motion denied	Federal EFAA voids forced arbitration for sex-based claims
Martinez v. Staten Island University Hospital	EDNY	2025	Summary judgment defeated	Misconduct policy cannot bypass the ADA interactive process
Nahar v. ADR Ventures (Dunkin')	SDNY	2024	Motion to dismiss defeated	Religious discrimination over a hijab
Robinson v. MSG Entertainment	SDNY	2024	Motion to dismiss defeated	Fair Chance Act individualized analysis

Trial verdicts

A firm that tries cases produces verdicts. The matters below are cases we took to a jury and won, in federal and state court. Trial work is one of the clearest measures of litigation depth, because it is the part of a case that cannot be outsourced or rushed. Each verdict below grew out of harassment, discrimination, retaliation, or a hostile work environment that a jury found to be real, and we defended what those juries decided through post-trial motions and, where necessary, appeals.

Pardovani v. Crown Building Maintenance

Court: U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York

Citation: No. 1:15-cv-09065 (Hon. Sidney H. Stein, trial and post-trial)

Plaintiffs' Firm: Phillips & Associates, PLLC

Defense firm: Ogletree Deakins, and Kauff McGuire & Margolis LLP

Claims: Race-based hostile work environment and race discrimination under Section 1981, Title VII, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Facts: The plaintiff worked in a janitorial role at Jazz at Lincoln Center. The trial evidence included repeated use of a racial slur by coworkers, including evidence that the slur was used in his presence and to refer to him, along with evidence about how the employer and worksite defendants responded.

Result: The jury returned $1.8 million, made up of $800,000 in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages, allocated $1.36 million against the building-maintenance defendants and $440,000 against Jazz at Lincoln Center. The court later awarded $244,896 in attorney's fees and $17,362.92 in expenses. The jury did not find for the plaintiff on every claim, and a $1 defamation counterclaim was awarded against him, but that did not disturb the hostile work environment verdict.

Cited by: 7

Employee significance: This case matters because employees often wonder whether words alone can support a real claim, and they can. A federal jury found a race-based hostile work environment and awarded $800,000 in compensatory and $1 million in punitive damages, and the court entered judgment on that verdict. For employees, the takeaway is that repeated slurs, who used them, who knew about them, and how the employer responded can together build a serious case.

Johnson v. STRIVE

Court: U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York

Citation: 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 228

Judge: Hon. Harold Baer, Jr.

Plaintiffs' Firm: Phillips & Associates, PLLC

Defense firm: Gordon & Rees LLP

Claims: Title VII hostile work environment, race discrimination, gender discrimination, and retaliatory firing.

Facts: The plaintiff recorded her supervisor using a racial slur during a workplace tirade. The defense argued the word was used in a cultural context or as a term of endearment because of the speaker's background. The jury rejected that argument.

Result: The jury awarded $280,000, made up of $250,000 in compensatory damages and $30,000 in punitive damages. The court ordered a remittitur of the compensatory damages to $128,109.59 and left the punitive damages intact, for an award after remittitur of $158,109.59 if accepted.

Cited by: 76

Employee significance: This case matters because workers are sometimes told a racial slur does not count because of who said it or the workplace culture. The jury rejected that defense and found for the employee, and the court left the punitive damages in place while ordering a reduced compensatory award. For employees, the takeaway is that a racial slur does not become acceptable because the speaker claims cultural context.

Fisher v. Mermaid Manor

Court: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York

Citation: 2016 WL 7330554 (Hon. William F. Kuntz II)

Plaintiffs' Firm: Phillips & Associates, PLLC

Defense firm: Jackson Lewis P.C.

Claims: Race and national origin discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Facts: The plaintiff, a Black home health aide, brought claims after workplace conduct that included an Instagram post comparing her to a fictional chimpanzee from Planet of the Apes, along with evidence of racial hostility, complaints, and retaliatory treatment.

Result: After a five-day trial, the jury awarded $275,000, made up of $25,000 in actual damages and $250,000 in punitive damages. The court sustained liability but reduced the punitive damages to $50,000, for a final award of $75,000.

Cited by: 3

Employee significance: This case matters because harassment increasingly happens online, and a social media post can be part of a workplace discrimination case. A jury found Mermaid Manor liable under Title VII and the NYCHRL, and the court upheld liability while reducing the punitive damages. For employees, the takeaway is that screenshots, posts, and messages can be evidence of a hostile work environment.

Roberts v. UPS

Court: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York

Citation: 2015 WL 4509994 (Hon. Jack B. Weinstein)

Plaintiffs' Firm: Phillips & Associates, PLLC

Defense firm: Nukk-Freeman & Cerra, P.C.

Claims: Sexual orientation discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under the New York City Human Rights Law.

Facts: The plaintiff, a lesbian UPS employee, presented evidence that a supervisor repeatedly made comments about her sexual orientation, that she complained repeatedly, and that the employer failed to stop the conduct.

Result: The jury awarded $100,000, reported as $25,000 in compensatory and $25,000 in punitive damages on each of two claims. The court denied the defendants' post-trial motions to set aside the verdict, dismiss the case, order a new trial, or reduce the damages.

Cited by: 30

Employee significance: This case matters because repeated complaints cannot be ignored without consequence. The court upheld a NYCHRL sexual orientation discrimination verdict and punitive damages where the employer failed to respond properly to repeated complaints. For employees, the takeaway is that management's indifference can become powerful evidence when the company knows about harassment and does not stop it.

Echevarria v. Insight Medical

Court: U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York

Citation: 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176485, No. 13 Civ. 3710 (Hon. Katherine Polk Failla)

Plaintiffs' Firm: Phillips & Associates, PLLC

Defense firm: Jackson Lewis P.C.

Claims: Sexual harassment and retaliatory termination under Title VII and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Facts: The plaintiff alleged that she was sexually harassed and then fired after she complained. After a four-day trial, the jury found for her on retaliation.

Result: The jury awarded $50,000 in compensatory damages on the retaliation claim. The court denied the defendants' post-trial motions, including their requests for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, and reduced damages.

Cited by: 24

Employee significance: This case matters because employees fired soon after reporting harassment need to know that timing can be powerful proof. After a four-day trial, the jury found for the employee on retaliation, and the court denied the defendants' post-trial motions to undo the verdict. For employees, the takeaway is that the complaint, the timing of the firing, and the employer's explanation can carry a retaliation claim through trial.

Fields v. Greenthal

Court: U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York

Citation: No. 1:11-cv-5241 (Hon. Lorna G. Schofield)

Plaintiffs' Firm: Phillips & Associates, PLLC

Claims: Disability discrimination and retaliation tried to a federal jury.

Result: The jury awarded $250,000 total, made up of $100,000 in emotional distress damages and $150,000 in punitive damages.

Employee significance: This case matters because disability discrimination and retaliation cause real harm, not just technical violations. A federal jury returned a verdict for the employee on disability discrimination and retaliation claims. For employees, the takeaway is that these claims can be tried to a jury and can support both emotional distress and punitive damages.

Grant v. Pexie Enterprises

Court: New York Supreme Court, Queens County

Citation: Index No. 704041/2015

Plaintiffs' Firm: Phillips & Associates, PLLC

Defense firm: Law Offices of Frederick K. Brewington

Claims: Sexual harassment, assault, battery, and constructive discharge.

Facts: The plaintiff worked for the defendants for less than two weeks. The jury found the defendants liable for sexual harassment, assault, battery, and constructive discharge, and rejected the counterclaims filed against her.

Result: A Queens County jury returned a unanimous verdict of $112,000 and rejected the counterclaims against the employee.

Employee significance: This case matters because harassment does not need to last for years before it counts. The jury found the defendants liable even though the employee had worked there less than two weeks. For employees, the takeaway is that the question is not how long you worked there, but what happened, who did it, and whether the employer is responsible.

Tried, then defended on appeal

A jury verdict is not the end of the fight. Employers often keep going after they lose, asking the trial court to undo the verdict or asking an appellate court to reverse it. The two cases below show us winning at trial and then holding the result on appeal.

Smart v. USA Labor for Hire

Court: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, and the Second Circuit

Citation: No. 1:20-cv-5594, Second Circuit No. 24-1791 (Hon. Taryn A. Merkl)

Plaintiffs' Firm: Phillips & Associates, PLLC

Defense firm: Law Office of Garry Pogil

Claims: Hostile work environment based on sex, gender, race, and color, retaliatory termination, and defamation. The jury found for the defendants on the national origin hostile work environment and discriminatory termination claims.

Facts: On appeal, the defendants challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, sought a new trial or reduced damages, and argued the plaintiff had not proven an employment relationship. The Second Circuit affirmed, finding sufficient evidence of a constructive employment relationship, including evidence that the manager controlled hiring, salary, work activities, and firing.

Result: A January 2024 jury verdict produced a recovery reported as more than $425,000, including fees and costs. In April 2025, the Second Circuit affirmed the July 3, 2024 district court judgment.

Cited by: 4

Employee significance: This case matters because winning at trial is only half the battle when the employer appeals. A jury found for the employee on hostile work environment and retaliation claims, and in April 2025 the Second Circuit affirmed, including its finding that the employee had a valid employment relationship with the controlling company. For employees, the takeaway is that overlapping control by related companies and managers can support liability, and a verdict can hold up on appeal.

Sooroojballie v. Port Authority

Court: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, and the Second Circuit

Citation: 816 F. App'x 536 (2d Cir. 2020), EDNY No. 1:15-cv-01230 (Hon. William F. Kuntz II)

Plaintiffs' Firm: Phillips & Associates, PLLC

Defense firm: Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Office of the General Counsel

Claims: Hostile work environment based on race and national origin under Title VII and Section 1981.

Facts: The plaintiff alleged repeated race and national origin harassment by a supervisor, including interference with his training and advancement, false counseling memoranda, and a false accusation that he sabotaged a boiler. The Second Circuit held that related acts could be considered as part of the hostile work environment pattern.

Result: A jury found for the employee on a race and national-origin hostile work environment claim and awarded compensatory and punitive damages. The Second Circuit affirmed liability and the $150,000 punitive damages award, but reduced the compensatory damages from $2.16 million to $250,000, for a total of about $400,000. The court reversed the Section 1981 claim against the Port Authority on a municipal-liability ground, while leaving the hostile work environment finding in place.

Cited by: 60

Employee significance: This case matters because workplace harassment is often a pattern, not one isolated event. The Second Circuit affirmed liability and punitive damages in a race and national-origin hostile work environment case, while reducing the compensatory damages award. For employees, the takeaway is that related incidents over time may help show the full scope of a hostile work environment.

Appellate precedent

A Second Circuit decision binds federal courts across New York, Connecticut, and Vermont. When we win an issue at the circuit level, district courts have to apply it. These are the matters that made law.

Vasquez v. Empress Ambulance

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Citation: 835 F.3d 267 (2d Cir. 2016) (Hon. Guido Calabresi)

Plaintiffs' Firm: Phillips & Associates, PLLC

Defense firm: Stagg, Terenzi, Confusione & Wabnik, LLP

Claims: Title VII and NYSHRL retaliation following a sexual harassment complaint.

Result: The district court dismissal was reversed and the claim reinstated. The court adopted the cat's paw theory of retaliation in the Second Circuit and extended it to a nonsupervisory employee.

Cited by: 206

Employee significance: This case matters because the person with a grudge is not always the one who signs the termination. The Second Circuit reinstated the employee's retaliation claim and adopted the cat's paw theory, holding that an employer can be liable when its own negligence lets a biased or dishonest coworker manipulate the decision to fire someone. For employees, the takeaway is that a company cannot escape responsibility by relying on a fabricated story just because the final decision-maker was not the original harasser.

Roberts v. Genting New York

Court: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, and the Second Circuit

Citation: EDNY No. 1:14-cv-00257 (Hon. Kiyo A. Matsumoto), Second Circuit No. 21-833 (May 15, 2023)

Plaintiffs' Firm: Phillips & Associates, PLLC

Defense firm: Kane Kessler, P.C.

Claims: WARN Act and New York WARN Act class action involving 177 employees.

Result: The Second Circuit vacated summary judgment and revived the WARN Act claims, holding that a reasonable factfinder could conclude the Aqueduct Buffet was an operating unit requiring advance notice before 177 employees were laid off.

Cited by: 51

Employee significance: This case matters because employees affected by mass layoffs may still have rights even when the employer claims the affected group was not a separate unit. The Second Circuit revived the WARN Act claims because a reasonable factfinder could conclude the buffet was an operating unit. For employees, the takeaway is that a dismissed layoff case can be revived when the legal standard was applied too narrowly.

Decisions that shaped the standard

Decisions where we kept a case alive through a motion to dismiss or summary judgment, and where the court adopted our reading of the governing standard. Several are reported decisions other courts and lawyers now cite.

Crump v. NYCHA

Court: New York Supreme Court, New York County

Citation: 2020 NY Slip Op 51143(U) (Hon. Gerald Lebovits)

Plaintiffs' Firm: Phillips & Associates, PLLC

Defense firm: New York City Law Department

Claims: Sexual orientation discrimination, retaliation, aiding and abetting, vicarious liability, and assault and battery under the NYCHRL.

Result: Summary judgment defeated on the core claims. Only the assault and battery claims were dismissed, on collateral-estoppel grounds.

Cited by: 2

Employee significance: This case confirms that under the NYCHRL, employers cannot use the "after-acquired evidence" doctrine to completely dismiss a worker's lawsuit before it reaches a jury. It establishes that an employee can face legitimate discipline for a subsequent workplace incident while still pursuing claims as a victim of prior, illegal discrimination. One does not excuse the other. Ultimately, this ensures that post-incident misconduct does not automatically wipe away an employer's baseline liability for discrimination.

Vasquez v. Manhattan Physician Group

Court: New York Supreme Court, New York County

Citation: 2018 NY Slip Op 30157(U)

Plaintiffs' Firm: Phillips & Associates, PLLC

Defense firm: Aaronson Rappaport Feinstein & Deutsch, LLP

Claims: Gender discrimination and sexual harassment in a place of public accommodation under the NYCHRL.

Result: In a matter of first impression, the court extended NYCHRL public-accommodation protection to patients in a medical office, not only to employees.

Cited by: 3

Employee significance: This case matters because discrimination protections are sometimes assumed to cover only employees. In a matter of first impression, the court extended New York City Human Rights Law public-accommodation protection to patients in a medical office. For employees and patients, the takeaway is that the City law's reach can include the people a business serves, not just the people it employs.

Santana v. Yonkers City School District

Court: New York Supreme Court, Westchester County

Citation: 82 Misc 3d 327 (Sup Ct, Westchester County 2023)

Plaintiffs' Firm: Phillips & Associates, PLLC

Defense firm: Abrams Fensterman LLP

Claims: Race discrimination and retaliation under the NYSHRL.

Result: Summary judgment denied as to the District, on triable issues of pretext including increased scrutiny, changed treatment, and a termination recommendation after the complaint.

Cited by: 11

Employee significance: This case matters because retaliation often shows up as a sudden change in how someone is treated after they complain. The court denied summary judgment, finding triable issues of pretext after the employee's complaint. For employees, the takeaway is that a pattern of heightened scrutiny and adverse decisions following a complaint can be evidence a jury should weigh.

Faruque v. JPMorgan Chase

Court: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York

Citation: No. 1:24-cv-05734 (Hon. Orelia E. Merchant)

Plaintiffs' Firm: Phillips & Associates, PLLC

Defense firm: Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

Claims: Gender, race, and national origin discrimination and hostile work environment under Title VII and the NYCHRL.

Result: The court denied the employer's motion to compel arbitration, applying the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act to the plaintiff's sex-based claims, voiding the arbitration clause and keeping the case in open court.

Employee significance: This case matters because many employees are forced to sign arbitration agreements that push their claims out of public court. The court denied the employer's motion to compel arbitration, applying the federal Ending Forced Arbitration Act to void the clause for the employee's sex-based claims. For employees, the takeaway is that this law can keep sexual harassment and related claims in open court even when a contract requires arbitration.

Martinez v. Staten Island University Hospital

Court: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York

Citation: No. 1:19-cv-02672

Plaintiffs' Firm: Phillips & Associates, PLLC

Defense firm: Littler Mendelson P.C.

Claims: Disability discrimination and failure to accommodate under the ADA.

Result: The court denied the hospital's motion for summary judgment. Because the hospital knew of the plaintiff's PTSD and anxiety, she was entitled to the ADA interactive process before termination. The hospital had labeled symptoms of her condition as workplace violence and fired her under a zero-tolerance policy.

Cited by: 2

Employee significance: This case matters because employers sometimes treat symptoms of a disability as misconduct and apply a zero-tolerance policy instead of accommodating the worker. The court denied summary judgment, holding that because the hospital knew of the employee's PTSD and anxiety, it owed her the ADA interactive process before firing her. For employees, the takeaway is that a workplace-violence or misconduct policy cannot be used to skip the ADA's required conversation when the employer knows the behavior may stem from a medical condition.

Nahar v. ADR Ventures (Dunkin')

Court: U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York

Citation: 2024 US Dist LEXIS 158275, No. 23-CV-3835

Plaintiffs' Firm: Phillips & Associates, PLLC

Defense firm: Pervez & Rehman P.C.

Claims: Religious discrimination under Title VII, the NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL.

Result: Motion to dismiss defeated for a Muslim woman who wore a hijab, was told it would drive customers away, was moved to the back of the store, and was effectively terminated.

Cited by: 2

Employee significance: This case matters because some employers move a worker out of sight to please biased customers. The court denied the motion to dismiss for a Muslim woman who wore a hijab and was sidelined. For employees, the takeaway is that an employer cannot sideline you to accommodate customer prejudice against your religious dress.

Robinson v. MSG Entertainment

Court: U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York

Citation: No. 1:23-cv-09366 (Hon. Lewis J. Liman)

Plaintiffs' Firm: Phillips & Associates, PLLC

Defense firm: Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

Claims: Criminal history discrimination under New York Correction Law Article 23-A, the Fair Chance Act.

Result: The court denied the employer's motion to dismiss the Fair Chance Act claims, holding that a same-day termination without the individualized analysis the law requires could be unlawful discrimination for a jury to decide.

Cited by: 9

Employee significance: This case matters because workers with a criminal record are entitled to individualized consideration, not an automatic no. The court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that a termination without the required Fair Chance analysis could be discrimination for a jury to decide. For employees, the takeaway is that New York's Fair Chance Act requires an employer to weigh rehabilitation, time since the conviction, and job performance before acting.

Additional litigated decisions by case type

The verdicts and precedent above are the headline matters, but they are not the whole record. If you are weighing whether to come forward, it helps to see that we've already litigated a case like yours, against an employer like yours, and won the ruling that let the case move forward. The decisions below are grouped by the kind of problem they started with. Find the one that sounds like your situation.

Race and national origin discrimination

If you were treated differently because of your race or where you come from, these rulings show those claims surviving the employer's first move to end them.

Wray v. Westchester Medical Center (SDNY, 2022). Motion to dismiss defeated under the amended NYSHRL standard. Cited by 11.
Alcy v. Northwell Health (SDNY, 2025). Summary judgment granted in part, and the discrimination and retaliation claims survived. Cited by 4.
Minto v. 165 Cafe (SDNY, 2024). A Section 1981 public-accommodation claim survived dismissal.
Watkins v. NYC Transit Authority (SDNY, 2018). Summary judgment defeated, and the employer's spoliation motion denied. Cited by 2.

Sexual harassment and hostile work environment

If someone at work crossed a line and the company looked the other way, these decisions kept survivors' claims alive and reached the people responsible.

Girardi v. Ferrari Express (SDNY, 2023). Motions to dismiss defeated, with leave to add aiding-and-abetting claims against the harasser. Cited by 10.
France v. Touro College (EDNY, 2016). Claims allowed against both the staffing contractor and the college on a joint-employer theory. Cited by 18.
Parra v. City of White Plains (SDNY, 2016). Summary judgment granted in part, and the hostile work environment claim survived. Cited by 2.
Holohan v. Newmark (SDNY, 2019). Retaliation claim sustained on close timing, with individual liability for a supervisor. Cited by 10.
Espinal v. Columbia University (SDNY, 2016). Motion to dismiss defeated, where a release signed under pressure was not knowing or voluntary. Cited by 4.
Roudabush v. Albert Einstein College of Medicine (NY Sup., Bronx, 2023). Motion to dismiss denied under the Adult Survivors Act.
Vitanza v. Savta NYC (NY Sup., NY County, 2025). Dismissal denied, with aiding-and-abetting liability for an owner who knew of the misconduct. Cited by: [count TBD — confirm before publishing].

Retaliation and whistleblower

If you were punished for reporting what was wrong, these rulings show why the timing of what happened next can matter.

Khan v. Meep New York (EDNY, 2026). Motion to dismiss denied on whistleblower claims under Labor Law Section 740. Cited by 4.
Chevannes v. ProHEALTH (EDNY). Summary judgment defeated, where a job-abandonment reason raised credibility questions for a jury.
McFarlane v. Community Health Center of Richmond (EDNY). Retaliation claim upheld after the discrimination claim was dismissed. Cited by 3.

Pregnancy and gender discrimination

If your job changed after you became pregnant or asked for accommodation, these decisions moved those claims toward a jury.

Ortiz v. Gazes (NY Sup., NY County, 2017). Summary judgment defeated for an employee terminated during maternity leave. Cited by 1.
Shkolnikova v. DeJoy (EDNY, 2022). Summary judgment defeated on pregnancy discrimination and retaliation. Cited by 1.
Thomaidis v. Weltham (EDNY, 2026). Summary judgment defeated, where the defendant qualified as the employer.
Griffith v. Coney Food (Checkers) (EDNY, 2020). Motion to dismiss defeated on a franchisor joint-employer theory. Cited by 4.
Ferrando-Dehtiar v. Anesthesia Group of Albany (NDNY, 2024). Failure-to-promote and retaliation claims survived summary judgment. Cited by 15.

Disability discrimination

If your employer treated a medical condition as a problem to manage instead of a person to accommodate, these rulings protect your rights.

Zhang v. Rosenbaum, Famularo & Segall (EDNY, 2025). Disability discrimination and wrongful termination claims advanced past summary judgment. Cited by 3.
Blanchard v. Kiewit (NDNY, 2026). Retaliation claim advanced on a forced out-of-state transfer after a complaint.
Pickett v. Baldwin Union Free School District (EDNY, 2016). Summary judgment defeated, where an accommodation that cut pay raised a fact dispute. Cited by 5.

Sexual orientation discrimination

If you were harassed for who you are, the City law sets a fair standard to be heard, and these decisions apply it.

Zimmer v. Warner Bros. (NY Sup., NY County, 2012). Summary judgment denied, rejecting the stray-remarks defense under the NYCHRL. Cited by 5.
Longchamp v. Equinox (NY Sup., NY County, 2024). Summary judgment denied on NYCHRL hostile work environment and retaliation.
DiPiano v. NYC Department of Education (EDNY, 2025). Summary judgment defeated under the continuing-violation doctrine. Cited by 2.

Wage, hour, and discovery

If you were not paid what you earned, or the company tried to keep the evidence buried, these rulings reached it.

Milan v. Sprint (EDNY, 2018). A discovery ruling reached pattern evidence of other harassment complaints. Cited by 8.
Pelgrift v. 335 W. 41st Tavern (SDNY, 2017). Judgment entered for the employee on wage and related claims after discovery sanctions. Cited by 53.
Musa v. Badero (EDNY, 2015). Judgment entered on unpaid overtime, reaching individual liability. Cited by 2.

Continue Reading Read Less

Contact Us

First Name
Please enter your first name.
Last Name
Please enter your last name.
Phone
Please enter your phone number.

This isn't a valid phone number.
Email
Please enter your email address.

This isn't a valid email address.
Are you a new client?
Please make a selection.
How can we help you?
Please enter a message.
By submitting, you agree to receive text messages from Phillips & Associates, PLLC at the number provided, including those related to your inquiry, follow-ups, and review requests, via automated technology. Consent is not a condition of purchase. Msg & data rates may apply. Msg frequency may vary. Reply STOP to cancel or HELP for assistance. Acceptable Use Policy

$2,000,000 Sexual Harassment
$3,375,000 Sexual Harassment
$975,000 Sexual Harassment & Retaliation
$5,000,000+ Gender and National Origin Discrimination
$2,200,000 Race Discrimination & Retaliation
$1,400,000 Religious & Sexual Orientation Discrimination
$1,800,000 Race Discrimination
$3,000,000 Gender Discrimination & Sexual Harassment
$5,000,000+ Sexual Harassment and Quid Pro Quo

View All Results

Why Clients Trust Us

Championing Your Rights With Unmatched Success & Compassion

$360M+ Recovered for 9,500+ Employees Like You

We have the power to take on the country’s largest employers.
11 Attorneys Named to Super Lawyers

Recognition that makes employers take you seriously — Super Lawyers and U.S. News Best Law Firms.
Every Case Is Reviewed by a Senior Attorney
You get experience on your side from day one.

Trusted by the National Media
Our attorneys are regularly asked to comment by NBC, the WSJ, and the NY Post.
Pay Nothing Unless We Win
Your consultation is free, and you pay only if we recover for you.
One of the Largest Plaintiff Law Firms Representing Employees

Speak With an Attorney Today

Start With A Free Consultation

First Name
Please enter your first name.
Last Name
Please enter your last name.
Phone
Please enter your phone number.

This isn't a valid phone number.
Email
Please enter your email address.

This isn't a valid email address.
Are you a new client?
Please make a selection.
How can we help you?
Please enter a message.
By submitting, you agree to receive text messages from Phillips & Associates, PLLC at the number provided, including those related to your inquiry, follow-ups, and review requests, via automated technology. Consent is not a condition of purchase. Msg & data rates may apply. Msg frequency may vary. Reply STOP to cancel or HELP for assistance. Acceptable Use Policy

Awards and Recognition

Independent legal rating organizations have recognized the firm and its attorneys for their work in labor and employment law. Phillips & Associates is ranked by Chambers and Partners in the 2026 Chambers USA Guide, Labor and Employment, Mainly Plaintiffs in New York, is recognized in Best Law Firms 2026, is listed in The Best Lawyers in America 2026 for Litigation, Labor and Employment, and has 15 attorneys recognized in Super Lawyers. Thirteen of the firm's attorneys have obtained settlements or verdicts exceeding $1 million, qualifying them for membership in the Million Dollar Advocates Forum and Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum. Recognition does not decide a case, but it reflects how clients, peers, and opposing counsel view the firm's work.