Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 New York opinions name it 1 courts 2020–2026 7 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Reichman v. City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2025"To prevail on a summary judgment motion in an action alleging discrimination in violation of NYSHRL, 'a defendant must demonstrate either the plaintiff's failure to establish every element of intentional discrimination, or, having offered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the challenged actions, the absence of a triable issue of fact as to whether the explanations were pretextual'" ( Reichman v City of New York , 179 AD3d at 1117 , quoting Langton v Warwick Val. 2022"To prevail on a summary judgment motion in an action alleging discrimination in violation of [the Human Rights Law], 'a defendant must demonstrate either the plaintiff's failure to establish every element of intentional discrimination, or, having offered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the challenged actions, the absence of a triable issue of fact as to whether the explanations were pretextual'" ( Reichman v City of New York , 179 AD3d at 1117, quoting Langton v Warwick Val. | 3 | 5 |
Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blindgreen2 sentences2023To prevail on a motion for summary judgment in an action alleging discrimination in violation of the NYSHRL, a defendant "must demonstrate either plaintiff's failure to establish every element of intentional discrimination, or, having offered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for their challenged actions, the absence of a material issue of fact as to whether their explanations were pretextual" ( Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind , 3 NY3d at 305 ; see Golston-Green v City of New York , 184 AD3d 24 , 36). 2021To prevail on a summary judgment motion in an action alleging discrimination in violation of the NYSHRL, "a defendant must demonstrate either the plaintiff's failure to establish every element of intentional discrimination, or, having offered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the challenged actions, the absence of a triable issue of fact as to whether the explanations were pretextual" ( Reichman v City of New York , 179 AD3d 1115, 1117 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind , 3 NY3d at 305 ). | 1 | 2 |
Averbeck v. Culinary Inst. of Am.green1 sentence2026Auth. , 206 AD3d 602 , 604 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Averbeck v Culinary Inst. of Am. , 180 AD3d 862, 862 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bilitch v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.
green
1 sentence2022Corp. , 194 AD3d at 1001 ). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Hamburg v. New York University School of Medicine
green
1 sentence2020Sch. of Medicine , 155 AD3d 66, 72-73 ). " Summary judgment dismissing a claim under the NYCHRL should be granted only if no jury could find [the] defendant liable under any of the evidentiary routes— McDonnell Douglas , mixed motive, direct evidence, or some combination thereof'" ( Sanderson-Burgess v City of New York , 173 AD3d at 1235, quoting Persaud v Walgreens Co. , 161 AD3d at 1020). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
green
1 sentence2020A defense motion for summary judgment in an action alleging discrimination in violation of the NYCHRL " must be analyzed under both the familiar framework of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v Green ( 411 US 792 [1973]) and under the newer mixed motive framework, which imposes a lesser burden on a plaintiff opposing such a motion'" ( Sanderson-Burgess v City of New York , 173 AD3d at 1235, quoting Persaud v Walgreens Co. , 161 AD3d 1019 , 1020; see Hamburg v New York Univ. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.