Case law

Dean v. Pepsi-Cola Binghamton Bottlers

894 F. Supp. 600 · District Court, N.D. New York · Aug 16, 1995

After this has been established, the burden of production switches to the defendant to show that there was a legitimate and nondiseriminatory reason for its actions. … her employer’s normal performance requirements was clearly a question for the jury.

Story v. National Security Agency

District Court, N.D. New York · Oct 9, 2024

“To begin with, the doctrine of sovereign immunity bars federal courts from hearing all suits against the federal government, including suits against federal agencies, unless sovereign immunity has been waived.” … Plaintiff's allegations are clearly “‘a case[] in which the complaint[s are] so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is well disguised.”

Matsko v. The State of New York

District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 14, 2022

against the State Defendants; and (2) even if Plaintiff had established a prima facie case, the proof in the record established that the State Defendants' actions were taken for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. … The State Defendants further argue that the NYSHRL "includes no waiver of the state's immunity to suit in federal court." Id.

Ramrattan v. The State of New York

District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 13, 2022

Eleventh Amendment immunity is lost only if Congress unequivocally abrogates states' immunity or a state expressly consents to suit. Gollomp v. Spitzer, 568 F.3d 355, 365-66 (2d Cir. 2009). … To successfully plead a Title II or RA claim, a plaintiff must establish three elements: (1) the plaintiff is a qualified individual with a disability, (2) the defendant is subject to the ADA or Rehabilitation Act, and (

Bennett v. New York State Thruway Authority

District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 11, 2024

a qualifying disability. … But the mere fact of a diagnosis is not enough to establish a qualifying disability, either. Weiss v. Cnty. of Suffolk, 416 F.

A.T. v. Harder

298 F. Supp. 3d 391 · District Court, N.D. New York · Apr 4, 2018

Plaintiffs clearly have the better of this argument. … disability under the IDEA, and rely on studies from the National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice to establish that at least 55 members of the juvenile class would meet the criteria to qualify for a disability

United States v. Alliedsignal, Inc.

62 F. Supp. 2d 713 · District Court, N.D. New York · Aug 18, 1999

Immunity from Contribution Under Section 113(f)(2). … To establish a prima facie case under section 113, Alliedsignal must establish that: (1) the municipal defendants fit into one of the four classes of responsible parties outlined in § 9607(a); (2) the Site is a facility;

Boss v. International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers

567 F. Supp. 845 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jun 15, 1983

The named plaintiffs are residents of New York who claim to be qualified for referral as construction “boilermakers” under the terms of applicable labor agreements and who allege that they were denied employment for reasons … A considerable body of federal case law applying agency 1 principles to labor relations reflects the importance of “control” by establishing the rule that a local union is not an agent of the International if that local is

Manning v. McGinty

District Court, N.D. New York · Apr 10, 2023

Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code ("Section 1983"), which establishes a cause of action for "'the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987)) ("For a constitutional right to be clearly established, its contours 'must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right

Xydous v. The City of Utica

District Court, N.D. New York · Jun 25, 2025

immunity, in that no clearly established law states that inaction by the police provides a basis for an abuse-of-process claim; and (5) Plaintiff’s municipal liability claim against Defendant City of Utica must be dismissed … Moreover, for the reasons stated above in Part II.C of this Decision and Order, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s second claim is defective, because (again, in addition to the effect of the doctrine of qualified immunity

Feldman v. Lyons

852 F. Supp. 2d 274 · District Court, N.D. New York · Apr 4, 2012

(I) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B). … Thereafter, Feldman created a website, www.liver4you.org, through which he offered live kidney transplants and live or cadaver liver transplants allegedly to be performed by qualified surgeons in a Philippines hospital.

Finn-Verburg v. New York State Department of Labor

122 F. Supp. 2d 329 · District Court, N.D. New York · Nov 8, 2000

In filing a complaint with the DEOD in June 1997, the plaintiff clearly participated in a protected activity. 2 However, the plaintiff has failed to show that as a result of this filing, there was any employment decision … against New York State brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , the New York Civil Service Law, the New York Human Rights Law, and New York common law (such as intentional infliction of emotional distress) are barred by sovereign immunity

Markel v. Blum

509 F. Supp. 942 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 4, 1981

Joinder thus clearly seems impracticable. … The County defendant, however, enjoys no such immunity, either directly or indirectly as an “arm of the state”. See, e. g., Lake County Estate v.

Kessler v. Town of Niskayuna

774 F. Supp. 711 · District Court, N.D. New York · Oct 10, 1991

The Niskayuna ordinance is preempted unless the Town can establish that the ordinance (1) has a reasonable and clearly defined health, safety or aesthetic objective, and (2) does not prevent or place unreasonable limitations … Section 1983 provides a private cause of action for any person who, under color of state law, has been deprived “of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws ” of the United States. 42 U.S.C

Attorney General of Canada v. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc.

103 F. Supp. 2d 134 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jun 30, 2000

However, foreign states, such as Canada, enjoy sovereign immunity and cannot be haled into United States courts as defendants. … That case made clear that, to establish proximate cause, a plaintiff must prove: (1) direct injury, see id. at 235 (“direct injury is a key element for establishing proximate causation”); and (2) foreseeability.

Thorpe v. Piedmont Airlines, Inc.

926 F. Supp. 2d 453 · District Court, N.D. New York · Feb 22, 2013

Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs allegations of discriminatory conduct prior to April 23, 2010, are not clearly time-barred, as the specific incidents comprise a discriminatory practice perpetrated by Defendant … However, to the extent Plaintiff attempts to re-assert claims under the ADEA or assert claims under Title VII, Plaintiff must clearly specify facts that will conform to the standards of review for such statutory relief.

Powell v. State of NY

869 F. Supp. 106 · District Court, N.D. New York · Nov 14, 1994

The person does have to go through a different qualification process, however: the individual must be certified as disabled, qualified for the position, and be able to perform the duties of the job. ' Once a veteran is appointed … McLaughlin, 913 F.2d 1033, 1041 (2d Cir.1990) (stating that it is clearly established that § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act only assures “evenhanded treatment” of disabled persons in comparison to nondisabled individuals).

Koberger v. Cletus

District Court, N.D. New York · Aug 5, 2025

Indeed, "'[i]t is well-established that there is no individual liability under the ADA or the [RA], whether the individual is sued in their official or individual capacity.'" Lawrence v. … Sys., 707 F.3d 144, 171 (2d Cir. 2013); see also Yerdon, 120 F.4th at 1153 (holding that disputes involving allegations of employment discrimination "are clearly governed by Title I of the ADA").

Rich v. Akwesasne Mohawk Casino Resort

District Court, N.D. New York · Aug 6, 2024

The undersigned has reviewed plaintiff's IFP application and determines that he financially qualifies to proceed IFP." … immunity.”

Girma v. Skidmore College

180 F. Supp. 2d 326 · District Court, N.D. New York · Nov 7, 2001

Prima Facie Case To establish a prima facie case of intentional discrimination, Plaintiff must establish four elements. … Qualified to hold the position Defendant asserts, however, that Plaintiff cannot satisfy the second prong of the prima facie case on his claims because he cannot demonstrate that he was qualified for reappointment.