green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 14×
38.5 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Akonji v. Unity Healthcare, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
the incidents must be more than episodic; they must be sufficiently continuous and concerted in order to be deemed pervasive.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Theresa Gregory v. Edward J. Daly
carrero's refusal to submit to sexual demands and her complaints against peterson resulted in deficient training, an unfair evaluation of her work, and a subsequent demotion.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Gregory v. Daly
carrero's refusal to submit to sexual demands and her complaints against peterson resulted in deficient training, an unfair evaluation of her work, and a subsequent demotion.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Bridgeport Hospital v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities
neither compensatory nor punitive damages are recoverable under title vii
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Bridges v. Eastman Kodak Co.
(3×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
gravamen of a quid pro quo claim is that a tangible job benefit or privilege is conditioned on an employee's submission to sexual blackmail
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Sharon Karibian v. Columbia University, John Borden, Defendants-Cross-Claimants-Appellees v. Mark Urban, Defendant-Cross-Defendant-Appellee
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
in quid pro quo cases the harassing employee acts as and for the company, holding out the employer's benefits as 781 an inducement to the employee for sexual favors
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Johnson v. Tower Air, Inc.
(6×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see, e.g."
it is not how long the sexual innuendos, slurs, verbal assaults, or obnoxious course of conduct lasts. the offensiveness of the individual actions complained of is also a factor to be considered in determining whether such actions are pervasive.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Miro v. Bridgeport
(2×)
the gravamen of a quid pro quo claim is that a tangible job benefit or privilege is conditioned on an employee's submission to sexual blackmail and that adverse consequences follow from the employee's refusal.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Maiurano v. Cantor Fitzgerald Securities Corp.
he harassing employee acts as and for the company, holding out the employer's benefits as an inducement to the employee for sexual favors.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Conklin v. County of Suffolk
neither compensatory nor punitive damages are recoverable under title vii
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Picinich v. United Parcel Service
remedies available to the victims of discrimination are committed to the sound discretion of the district court, and absent abuse they will not be disturbed.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Picinich v. United Parcel Service
remedies available to the victims of discrimination are committed to the sound discretion of the district court, and absent abuse they will not be disturbed.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Brzonkala v. Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
a female employee need not subject herself to an extended period of demeaning and degrading provocation before being entitled to seek the remedies provided under title vii.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Thornton
Rather, to be actionable conduct under the KCRA, the offensive conduct must be “sufficiently continuous and concerted in order to be deemed pervasive.” Ammerman, 30 S.W.3d at 798 (quoting Carrero, 890 F.2d at 577).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
DeAnna Johnson v. Ford Motor Company
Plaintiff next cites to Carrero v New York City Housing Authority, 890 F.2d 569, 579 (2d Cir. 1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fay v. City of Newburgh
But “the gravamen of a quid pro quo claim is that a tangible job benefit or privilege is conditioned on an employee's submission to sexual blackmail and that adverse consequences follow from the employee's refusal.” Id. (quoting Carrero, 890 F.2d at 579); see also Karibian, 14 F.3d at 778 (“the relevant inquiry in a quid pro quo case is whether the supervisor has linked tangible job benefits to the acceptance or rejection of sexual advances”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. 98 Starr Road Operating Co., LLC
Generally, “[t]he incidents must be more than episodic; they must be sufficiently continuous and concerted in order to be deemed pervasive.” Perry, 115 F.3d at 149 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Carrero v. New York City Housing Authority, 890 F.2d 569, 577 (2d Cir. 1989)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Small v. New York City Department of Education
Even so, incidents of discrimination “must be more than episodic; they must be sufficiently continuous and concerted in order to be deemed pervasive.” Perry v. Ethan Allen, Inc., 115 F.3d 143, 149 (2d Cir. 1997) (quoting Carrero v. New York City Housing Authority, 890 F.2d 569, 577 (2d Cir. 1989)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hernandez v. Premium Merchant Funding One, LLC
Here, Hernandez never claims that Geiselman’s comments were linked to him “holding out [PMF’s] benefits as an inducement to [Hernandez] for sexual favors.” Carrero, 890 F.2d at 579; Karibian v. Columbia Univ., 14 F.3d 773, 778 (2d Cir. 1994) (“The relevant inquiry in a quid pro quo case is whether the supervisor has linked tangible job benefits to the acceptance or rejection of sexual advances.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jean-Pierre v. Citizen Watch Company of America, Inc.
Sept. 3, 1998), aff’d, 182 F.3d 902 (2d Cir. 1999) (excluding racial slurs and comments not known by the plaintiff during the time he allegedly suffered the hostile work environment). deemed pervasive.” Carrero, 890 F.2d at 578.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co.
However, in light of the Second Circuit’s decisions in Muller , •which allowed reinstatement based on a retaliation cause of action where the plaintiffs “retaliation claim was not limited to his discharge but' could include any adverse actions throughout his employment”, 187 F.3d at 315 , and Carrero, which affirmed an award of reinstatement following discriminatory demotion, 890 F.2d at 579, McPartland clearly can no longer be considered good law. 3 * * # With these legal principles in mind, the Court now turns to the parties’ motions.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Bergerson v. Office of Mental Health
(3×)
The decision to award backpay is “measured against the 5 purposes which inform Title VII,” Albemarle, 422 U.S. at 417 , which include “remov[ing] the stain 6 discrimination leaves on equality in the workplace” and “mak[ing] victims of discrimination whole,” 7 Carrero, 890 F.2d at 580.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Bergerson v. New York State Office of Mental Health
(4×)
The decision to award backpay is “measured against the purposes which inform Title VII,” Albemarle, 422 U.S. at 417 , 95 S.Ct. 2362 , which include “remov[ing] the stain discrimination leaves on equality in the workplace” and “mak[ing] victims of discrimination whole,” Carrero, 890 F.2d at 580.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Howard v. Blalock Electric Service, Inc.
Id.; Carrero v. New York City Housing Authority, 890 F.2d 569, 578 (2d Cir.1989) (“The offensiveness of the individual actions complained of is also a factor to be considered in determining whether such actions are pervasive.”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Chin v. New York City Housing Authority
Carrero v. New York City Housing Authority, 890 F.2d 569, 574 (2d Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Carter v. New York
To do so, a plaintiff must demonstrate harassment that consists of “ ‘more than isolated incidents or casual comments that express harassment or hostility.’ ” Id. (quoting Babcock v. Frank, 783 F.Supp. 800, 808 (S.D.N.Y.1992)). “ ‘[T]he incidents must be repeated and continuous; isolated acts or occasional episodes will not merit relief.’ ” Id. (quoting Kotcher, 957 F.2d at 63 (citing Carrero v. New York City Housing Authority, 890 F.2d 569, 577 (2d Cir.1989))).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gibson v. Crucible Materials Corp.
To do so, a plaintiff must demonstrate harassment that consists of “ ‘more than isolated incidents or casual comments that express harassment or hostility.’ ” Id. at *8 (quoting Babcock v. Frank, 783 F.Supp. 800, 808 (S.D.N.Y.1992)). “ ‘[T]he incidents must be repeated and continuous; isolated acts or occasional episodes will not merit relief.’ ” Id. (quoting Kotcher, 957 F.2d at 63 (citing Carrero v. New York City Housing Authority, 890 F.2d 569, 577 (2d Cir.1989))). 2 The second prong of this analysis requires that harassment “ ‘occurred with respect to “terms, conditio…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Parrish v. Sollecito
See Harris, 510 U.S. at 21-22 , 114 S.Ct. 367 ; Carrero, 890 F.2d at 577-78.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Lange v. Town of Monroe
(4×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Carrero, 890 F.2d at 575.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Ramos v. Marriott International, Inc.
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
In order to establish a claim of hostile work environment, “[t]he incidents must be more than episodic; they must be sufficiently continuous and concerted in order to be deemed pervasive.” Carrero, *349 890 F.2d at 577; Lopez v. S.B.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fitzgerald v. Ford Marrin Esposito Witmeyer & Gleser, L.L.P.
In Carrero the Second Circuit held that there was a valid claim of hostile work environment in a situation where a supervisor made repeated unwelcome sexual advances to the plaintiff, which were not only unasked for and unacceptable, but were coerced, since they were inflicted by the plaintiff’s immediate superior. 890 F.2d at 578.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Walia v. Vivek Purmasir & Associates, Inc.
In determining whether to award back pay, the Second Circuit noted in Carrero v. New York City Housing Authority, 890 F.2d 569, 580 (2d Cir.1989), that “[a]n award of back pay is the rule, not the exception” because back pay is central to the Congressional intent both to “remove the stain discrimination leaves on equality in the workplace” and “to make victims of discrimination whole.” According to the documentation submitted by plaintiff, she only worked for Purmasir for three days at the rate of $400.00 per week.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ammerman v. Bd. of Educ., Nicholas County
(2×)
Carrero v. New York City Housing Authority, 890 F.2d 569, 577 (2d Cir.1989). . 510 U.S. 17, 23 , 114 S.Ct. 367, 371 , 126 L.Ed.2d 295, 302 ; Faragher, 524 U.S. at 786-87 , 118 S.Ct. at 2283 , 141 L.Ed.2d at 676 ; Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 80-82 , 118 S.Ct. 998, 1002-03 , 140 L.Ed.2d 201, 208 (1998)(quoting Harris). .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ericson v. City of Meriden
Where a plaintiff alleges Title VII and § 1983 violations concurrently, she must “sufficiently distinguish!] her § 1983 claim from her Title VII claim to permit suit on both.” Carrero, 890 F.2d at 576. “[A]lthough Title VII supplements and overlaps § 1983, it remains an exclusive remedy when a state or local employer violates only Title VII.” Moche, 781 F.Supp. at 168 (quoting John *290 ston v. Harris County Flood Control Dist., 869 F.2d 1565, 1576 (5th Cir.1989)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
P. v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.
See, e.g., Torres v. Pisano, 116 F.3d 625, 630 (2d Cir.1997); Carrero v. New York City Housing Authority, 890 F.2d 569, 577 (2d Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ellen Howley v. Town of Stratford and William Holdsworth
Thus, the plaintiff must demonstrate “either that a single incident was extraordinarily severe, or that a series of incidents were sufficiently continuous and concerted to have altered the conditions of her working environment.” Cruz v. Coach Stores, Inc., 202 F.3d at 570 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788 , 118 S.Ct. 2275 , 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998) (“conduct must be extreme to amount to a change in the terms and conditions of employment”); Carrero v. New York City Housing Authority, 890 F.2d 569, 577 (2d Cir.1989). *154 However…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dyke v. McCleave
Motors Corp., 32 F.3d 1007, 1011 (7th Cir.1994) (finding that plaintiff did not welcome her co-workers’ harassing behavior because “[plaintiffs] violent resentment of the conduct of her co-workers toward her [was] plain.”) (Coffey, J., dissenting); Carrero, 890 F.2d at 578 (requiring the plaintiff-employee to establish that the conduct of which she complains was unwelcome); Lucas v. South Nassau Communities Hosp., 54 F.Supp.2d 141, 148 (E.D.N.Y.1998) (“A complainant’s sexually provocative speech or dress is relevant in determining whether he or she found particular sexual advances we…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Red Mendoza v. Borden, Inc., D.B.A. Borden's Dairy
(3×)
I could take care of you"; harasser's bragging about his sexual prowess to plaintiff); Carrero v. New York City Housing Authority, 890 F.2d 569, 578 (2d Cir. 1989) (harasser "constantly touching [plaintiff] and attempting to bestow unasked for and unacceptable kisses upon her"); Smith v. Northwest Fin.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Quinn v. Nassau County Police Department
(2×)
Auth., 890 F.2d 569, 577 [2d Cir.1989]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cynthia A. Richardson v. New York State Department of Correctional Service, Auburn Correctional Facility
(2×)
Carrero v. New York City Housing Authority, 890 F.2d 569, 580 (2d Cir.1989) (reiterating that the conduct complained of must have been prompted by victim’s status). 2.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Simonton v. Runyon
The latter exists when an employer’s conduct unreasonably interferes with an individual’s work performance or creates an “intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.” Carrero v. New York City Housing Authority, 890 F.2d 569, 577 (2d Cir.1989) (quoting Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 65 , 106 S.Ct. 2399 , 91 L.Ed.2d 49 (1986)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Rennie v. GLASS, MOLDERS, POTTERY, PLASTICS & ALLIED WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION
Carrero v. New York City Housing Authority, 890 F.2d 569, 577 (2d Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Brown v. Middaugh
See also Tomka, 66 F.3d at 1305 n. 5 (“isolated remarks or occasional episodes of harassment will not merit relief under Title VII; in order to be actionable, the incidents of harassment must occur in concert or with a regularity that can reasonably be termed pervasive”); Carrero v. New York City Housing Authority, 890 F.2d 569, 577-78 (2d Cir.1989) (to be actionable, the alleged incidents “must be more than episodic; they must be sufficiently continuous and concerted in order to be deemed pervasive”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
DeWitt v. Lieberman
Explicit, or so-called “quid pro quo,” 6 sexual harassment occurs when a supervisor “alters an employee’s job conditions or withholds an economic benefit because the employee refuses to submit to sexual demands.” Carrero v. New York City Housing Authority, 890 F.2d 569, 577 (2d Cir.1989) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mendoza v. Borden, Inc.
(2×)
I could take care of you”; harasser’s bragging about his sexual prowess to plaintiff); Carrero v. New York City Housing Authority, 890 F.2d 569, 578 (2d Cir. 1989) (harasser “constantly touching [plaintiff] and attempting to bestow unasked for and unacceptable kisses upon her”); Smith v. Northwest Fin.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mendoza v. Borden, Inc.
(2×)
I could take care of you"; harasser's bragging about his sexual prowess to plaintiff); Carrero v. New York City Housing Authority, 890 F.2d 569, 578 (2d Cir.1989) (harasser "constantly touching [plaintiff] and attempting to bestow unasked for and unacceptable kisses upon her"); Smith v. Norwest Fin.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gibson v. Hurleyville Fire Co. No. 1
Genas v. State of New York Dep’t of Correctional Services, 75 F.3d 825 , 832 (2d Cir.1996); Annis v. County of Westchester, 36 F.3d 251, 254 (2d Cir.1994); Carrero v. New York City Housing Authority, 890 F.2d 569, 577 (2d Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Burrell v. City University of New York
While “a plaintiff cannot use Section 1983 to gain perceived advantages not available to a Title VII claimant,” Saulpaugh v. Monroe Community Hospital, 4 F.3d 134, 143 (2d Cir.1993), “a plaintiff can assert a [concurrent] claim under Section 1983 if some law other than Title VII is the source of the right alleged to have been denied.” Id. (separate claims permitted where § 1983 claim cognizable violations of Constitutional provisions); Carrero v. New York City Housing Authority, 890 F.2d 569, 576 (2d Cir.1989); Jungels, 922 F.Supp. at 785 ; see also, Gierlinger v. New York State Polic…
Consolidated Gold Fields Plc, Gold Fields Mining Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants, Newmont Mining Corporation, Newmont Gold Company
v.
Minorco, S.A., Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, Anglo American Corporation of South Africa Limited and De Beers Consolidated Mines Limited
v.
Minorco, S.A., Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, Anglo American Corporation of South Africa Limited and De Beers Consolidated Mines Limited
88-7932.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Apr 17, 1989.
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Second Circuit (2) · D. Connecticut (2) · S.D. New York (2) · Fourth Circuit (1) · D. New Mexico (1) · E.D. New York (1)
CONSOLIDATED GOLD FIELDS PLC, Gold Fields Mining
Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants,
Newmont Mining Corporation, Newmont Gold Company, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
MINORCO, S.A., Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee,
Anglo American Corporation of South Africa Limited and De
Beers Consolidated Mines Limited, Defendants.
Nos. 88-7932, 88-7934.
United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.
April 17, 1989.
Before FEINBERG, NEWMAN and ALTIMATI, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
[*~569]1
A request having been received from the Securities and Exchange Commission, appearing as amicus curiae, to correct the opinion filed on March 22, 1989, and responding papers having been submitted by plaintiffs-appellees-cross-appellants, it is hereby ORDERED that the opinion is amended only to the following extent:
[*~571]2
871 F.2d 252 at p. 263, 1st col. lines 8 and 9 from bottom, delete "to abstain from granting a remedy for reasons of international comity." and substitute the following:
[*~573]3
to abstain, for reasons of international comity, from enjoining the tender offer worldwide pending corrective disclosure.7
[*~581]4
7. The Commission's amicus brief expressed the view that certain other remedies, such as a requirement of corrective disclosure, would have a narrower extraterritorial effect than the remedy of an injunction pending corrective disclosure. The Commission took no position on such other remedies. If the disclosure is to be informative at a meaningful time, it is not readily apparent why the Commission perceives a difference between an injunction pending disclosure and a disclosure requirement.