Case law

Francis v. Chemical Banking Corp.

62 F. Supp. 2d 948 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 11, 1999

Mills used the word Negroes or a racial epithet, admitting that he did not hear clearly. … Here, plaintiff fails to qualify for this type of exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement under Title VII.

Ram v. Lal

906 F. Supp. 2d 59 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 21, 2012

Indeed, "it is well settled that judges are absolutely immune [from both injunctions and damages] for any actions taken within the scope of their judicial responsibilities.” Hubbard v. J.C. … Thus, even if the Federal Plaintiffs were to attempt to join the State Court or the Receiver, they would be “absolutely immune” and thus Section 1983 does not provide a procedure for redress. .

Cummings-Fowler v. Suffolk County Community College

981 F. Supp. 2d 124 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 4, 2013

With that being said, it clearly appears that the evidence shows that while the Plaintiff may have been qualified for the position of Associate Dean of Instructional Technology, McIntosh was at least equally qualified. … It clearly would not have been unreasonable for the Defendants to select McIntosh over the Plaintiff.

Duffy v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

927 F. Supp. 587 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 27, 1996

In order to establish a prima facie case under the ADEA, plaintiff must demonstrate (1) that she was within the protected age group, (2) that she was qualified for the position, (3) that she was discharged, and (4) that the … Defendant, hpwever, argues that plaintiff cannot establish that she was qualified for the position.

Massey v. On-Site Manager, Inc.

285 F.R.D. 239 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 23, 2012

The party moving for class certification “bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that each of Rule 23’s requirements has been met.” … Clearly, relegating these claims to a single action is highly preferable to requiring every class member to find counsel and bring their own action.

Ross v. Transportation Security Administration TSA

District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 10, 2025

To state a claim under Title VII, the plaintiff must establish (1) that he is a member of the protected class, (2) that he was qualified for the position, (3) that he was subject to an adverse employment decision, and … establishes what steps he took to exhaust his administrative remedies.

Smith v. Waintraub

District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 14, 2022

Plaintiff has failed to establish that this Court has jurisdiction to hear her claims against Waintraub and Krausz. … Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991) (“[J]udicial immunity is an immunity from suit, not just from the ultimate assessment of damages.”).

Jacques v. DiMarzio, Inc.

200 F. Supp. 2d 151 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 6, 2002

In order to establish a prima facie case, the employee must demonstrate that: “(1) [her] employer is subject to the ADA; (2)[s]he was disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (3)[s]he was otherwise qualified to perform the … (establishing standards for Industrial Homework).

Bensley v. Falconstor Software, Inc.

277 F.R.D. 231 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 29, 2011

the oral argument, “[t]here was no disclosure in that January announcement that the reason [the company wasn’t] making [its] projections was because [it] had engaged in fraud as opposed to the later announcement which was clearly … Burns also asserts that “in and out” purchasers previously appointed as lead plaintiff have been subsequently dismissed on summary judgment because they could not establish damages.

Perez v. County of Nassau

294 F. Supp. 2d 386 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 23, 2003

In Bridgeway, a summary judgment motion that was “filed and served ... qualifie[d] as an ‘original pleading’ for purposes of the relating back provision of Rule 15(c).” … Brown, 466 U.S. 147 , 150 n. 3, 104 S.Ct. 1723 , 80 L.Ed.2d 196 (1984), the Supreme Court also warned that: [procedural requirements established by Congress for gaining access to the federal courts are not to be disregarded

Roman Catholic Archdiocese v. Sebelius

987 F. Supp. 2d 232 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 16, 2013

Clearly, plaintiffs view the latter as having vastly different religious significance than the former. 11 The Court cannot say that “the line [plaintiffs] drew was an unreasonable one.” … Finally, the Diocesan plaintiffs’ Establishment Clause challenges to the religious employer exemption must also fail because it is undisputed that they qualify for the exemption, -and thus cannot claim to be harmed by it.

Alvarez Sosa v. Barr

369 F. Supp. 3d 492 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 31, 2019

J Chapter 2, https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual (last visited Mar. 30, 2019) ("A petitioner must satisfy the following requirements to qualify for SIJ classification: ... … Mead Corp. , 533 U.S. 218 , 226-27, 121 S.Ct. 2164 , 150 L.Ed.2d 292 (2001) ("[A]dministrative implementation of a particular statutory provision qualifies for Chevron deference when it appears that Congress delegated authority

Reeves

District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 5, 2026

Qualified Immunity Finally, Defendants contend that Detective Davila’s conduct as alleged in the complaint is shielded by the doctrine of qualified immunity. Def. … Supp. 2d 102, 133 (N.D.N.Y. 2014) (“Since determining whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity is generally a fact intensive inquiry, the Second Circuit has made clear that it disfavors granting qualified immunity

Blankman v. County of Nassau

819 F. Supp. 198 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 21, 1993

Thus, any economic or tax consequences of the leases were also established before 1988. … Because plaintiffs claims are dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1), the Court does not address defendants’ arguments regarding absolute and/or qualified immunity and plaintiffs’ failure to plead fraud with particularity

The Estate of Thomas Staats v. Our Lady of Consolation Nursing and Rehabilitative Care Center

District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 24, 2023

“the PREP Act does not exhibit the ‘extraordinary’ preemptive force required for complete preemption”; (2) “Grable ‘does not support federal question and removal jurisdiction in this case’”; and (3) defendants do not qualify … There is no basis to conclude that the PREP Act completely upends well-established state law in this area.

Marciano v. Coughlin

510 F. Supp. 1034 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 6, 1981

Under New York Correction Law §§ 851-61 (McKinney Supp.1980) the New York State Legislature has established a program by which qualifying inmates are released for short periods in order to pursue occupational, personal, educational … His demand for injunctive relief as to the *1037 future administration of the program clearly is appropriately asserted under that section. Zurak v.

Fonville v. NYPD

District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 26, 2021

If [it did not], ‘there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.’” (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Saucier v. … Those questions of fact preclude summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds.”); Smith v. Fields, No. 95-CV- 8374, 2002 WL 342620, at *6 n.9 (S.D.N.Y.

Stone v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority

539 F. Supp. 2d 669 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 26, 2008

Williams, 534 U.S. 184, 197 , 122 S.Ct. 681 , 151 L.Ed.2d 615 (2002) (stating that Congress intended to “create a demanding standard for qualifying as disabled” under the ADA). … The evidence clearly demonstrates that, even if plaintiff had not informed Mr.

The Estate of Marikate Cavanagh v. Our Lady of Consolation Nursing and Rehabilitative Care Center

District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 24, 2023

“the PREP Act does not exhibit the ‘extraordinary’ preemptive force required for complete preemption”; (2) “Grable ‘does not support federal question and removal jurisdiction in this case’”; and (3) defendants do not qualify … There is no basis to conclude that the PREP Act completely upends well-established state law in this area.

Binder v. Long Island Lighting Co.

847 F. Supp. 1007 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 29, 1994

for other positions for which he may have been qualified. … See Flynn, 836 F.Supp. at 164 . (1) Binder clearly established that he was in the protected class.