Margaret Doe v Bloomberg L.P.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Margaret Doe v Bloomberg L.P. 2018 NY Slip Op 33961(U) September 7, 2018 Supreme Court, Bronx County Docket Number: 28254-2016E Judge: Fernando Tapia Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [*FILED: 1] BRONX COUNTYCOUNTY CLERK 09/10/2018 12:43 PM FILED BRONX CLERK : 09/10/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 49 NYSCEF DOC. NO. INDEX NO. 28254/2016E 10:38 AM| RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/10/2018 REC 47 SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF THE OF BRONX: STATE Part NEW YORK OF 13 DOE" "MARGARET Index: Plaintiff, - BLOOMBERG MICHAEL L.P., NICHOLAS - against F Hon. BLOOMBERG, and FERRIS Defendants. DECISION moves Plaintiff her opposition on entered defendant to December Defendant the to and or facts not the designed previously law to decided. is opposes 2221 be may he that the afford leave upon reason unsuccessful 2 2 of 6 to of he the filed have not Decision by employment and its actual any discrimin action this Company did plaintiff granting granted violation, Plaintiff plaintiff. that 2221, dismiss, rights founder the by for only some a civil arguing motion for the alleged granted or is by CPLR to motion This filed conduct the A CPLR court basis Bloomberg connection 2017. lawsuit on personally, pursuant order, Bloomberg's 6, harassment sexual an for against President involvement plaintiff. the to a showing mistakenly party and reargue "that arrived successive renew the court at its is in the sound or overlooked earlier opportunities discr mis decision." to I reargue [*FILED: 2] BRONX COUNTYCOUNTY CLERK 09/10/2018 12:43 PM |FILED : BRONX CLERK 09/10/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 49 NYSCEF DOC. NO. RE the grants plaintiff's Court of motion Subsection claim. participated in individual they posit, 'connection to to be have to any ownership dismiss 3 School. under plaintiff an state that On fails C.P.L.R. to state this were unable NYCHRL "does they to 3211 § the claim aiding/abetting the 'employer'" an an by show that 5 underlying personally to the because claim.» the held others." failed argues must "plaintiff that New v. necessary and allege sex Bloomberg conduct. deemed be where claim Bloomberg may a motion dismissal has alleged Defendant any for environment the Zakrzewska in brought plaintiff work clear reargue. Bloomberg Specifically, hostile to provides (7) made Appeals Defendant may ANd RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/10/2018 47 which and INDEX NO. 28254/2016E 10:38 liable under interest or the any the The and State power had in do to City her 'some than to in det a busin culpabi minimal opposition Human more purport interest ownership individual plaintiff not argues Law Rights carry out under its tha solely personnel 6 by In "fight a civil national NYCHRL the 1991, City's City These under Human New York expanded counter-revolution rights level. of the Rights Law achieved Act Restoration 3 of 6 "has of been protections was that never reforms the already their 2005 8 construed civil restricting 7 potential". New reflected too narrowly." Human rights amendment The York City 9 "In Council's R pr [*FILED: 3] COUNTYCOUNTY CLERK 09/10/2018 12:43 PM FILED BRONX : BRONX CLERK 09/10/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 49 NYSCEF DOC. NO. be RE of construed 10 a regular to failing The of that has what these in this of the to for or ccñdcñiñg, be for employer noted that "[t]he of the Hum City read to the reargument of the these is statute, in is part liable for a motivating the 1991 spe Rights Law. where Section encourage, of cases for 4 of 6 Amendments. cited creating agent or by Forrest a distinct Rights ex Law, agent' or w th of the managerial in vicarious ins the no imposes for cñc6üra under exercised acquiesce liable law provision 8-107(13)(b)(1) condene, the factor or be however, employee discrimination haras by the circumstances 'an of because it forth Human City St employee's to ignored, the of conduct an a party set independent employee 'the It Law for law] the not Rights correctly of the would Human of quantum defendant t asserting those the became employment relevant one enactments Appeals, if state court and supervisory 13, [under The of even State 8-107(13)(b) responsibility.' Taxi the employer Human separate employer 1991 the 'mirrored' that, the the it.' section be dicta liable unless three shall violation of Gurian this Court Law actionable, held State of text provides part York bother of failure Rights in approving the to statutory was of the under be act the example, harassment cannot of analysis stated Law, discriminatory Totem New to H Human City sufficient 'empl6yer the of provisions failing of provisions provisions Professor of sin the action. 12, the supervisor's that identical Granting subject Rights been of his Forrest provisions One or that misconstrue to read." have underscore Act, judges led they to "In referred Restoration either Gurian Human similar to sentiments. parallel had the committing Professor cases of footnote' believe seeks from author basis, court Council the law, independently the 'dropping this local this statutes." on ANd RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/10/2018 47 passage to INDEX NO. 28254/2016E 10:38 the the require conduct. contrary liability propo regim [*FILED: 4] BRONX COUNTYCOUNTY CLERK 09/10/2018 12:43 PM IFILED BRONX CLERK : 09/10/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 49 NYSCEF DOC. NO. AM| RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/10/2018 REC 47 affirmative defcase, conduct the It known have different choice It evidence clear of "some seek to be this responsibility" CEO that question and but of the the words, of reaso Council City managers and supervisors blinders exercise to parallelism rote c employer the failed sup the in whether is other In liability 1998, preven 14 this." seeing NYCHRL under that culpability" in such the liability or determination conduct about in minimal create a liability of question managerial exercise to conduct. 1991 court successful to such from court is where the to apply who discriminatory Court Forrest to the not agents relevant only in Supreme defendant is prevent to the not of diligence the and harassment co-employee does however, ciapIGyees of responsibility. did INDEX NO. 28254/2016E 10:38 her an or "connection The claim. mere plaintiff the not is required claim" the intent The over had Bloomberg to legislative standard. exacting plaintiff the underlying noted as "managerial is or sufficient dra the by supervis basis to claim. It should be noted decision has been directly showing that the defendant that but the is unknown is also district also CEO the extent undiscovered the on of his namesake of his involvement if by participated split Bloomberg advanced proposition contradicted are courts the that in this 5 of 6 other district conduct the issue. Bloomberg company. At with had a direct the this by court rise not as stage, to no the any do claim. an owner has discovery process if cour that merely decision-making connection federal decisions giving is lower the to the at sexual Bloo h [*FILED: 5] COUNTYCOUNTY CLERK 09/10/2018 12:43 PM FILED BRONX : BRONX CLERK 09/10/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 49 NYSCEF DOC. NO. RE her and Taking the from those Bloomberg's and Third This Dated: and Causes constitutes September the as the of claim under the NYSHRL the and 17, this court the benefit and NYCHRL, sex then law, all the inferences a matter as of it pleadin allegations resolving complaint the NYCHRL at and true sexual subject factual cognizable plaintiff, corners the complaint, favor plaintiff's four the the action complaint and whether is that o favo every a cogniza states discrimination/hostile court this finds in the is ORDERED vacated of Affording from under of LLP Bloomberg, discrimination, criterion cause the in sole corners any of whether it four dismiss. to claims Accordingly, the allegations aiding/abetting environment is from manifest motion for the dismiss, at employment violation, allegations determining action if, a culture condoning rights to together, fail."16 flowing civil a motion action, taken which, of claims "Upon of and encouraging, creating, caused cause AM) RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/10/2018 47 in any INDEX NO. 28254/2016E 10:38 that this defendant of are decision 07, to Bloomberg's Action the motion reargue motion is to granted dismiss and, with upon respect reargument, to the First, denied. and order of the court. 2018 6 of 6 Hon. Fernando a

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.