Opinions

Selected written opinions may be accessed through pacer.

Register online for your free PACER account by contacting the national PACER Service Center, or by calling the PACER Service Center at (800) 676-6856 or (210) 301-6440.

Selected written opinions from New York Eastern District Court and participating courts are also available for free from the U.S. Government Printing Office United States Courts Opinion website. No account is required to access these opinions.

 

==================

15-CV-1496

The attached decision by Judge Jack Weinstein holds that without violating age discrimination protections, an employer may give substantial weight to board certifications of medical candidates in hiring or in advertising job openings.
 
Plaintiff, Jill S. Meyer, a non-board certified psychiatrist, brings this action against the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.  Alleged are age discrimination and retaliation.  The VA hired younger, board certified psychiatrists, rather than plaintiff. 
 
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted. 
 

15-CV-2013

Dash v. Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of New York 15-CV-2013
A female principal allegedly created a licentious aura in a public school, resulting in harm to plaintiff, then an assistant principal.  He is an African American male formerly employed by the Board of Education of the City School District of New York.  He alleges that that he was subjected to disparate treatment; suffered a hostile, sexually charged work environment based upon his race and gender; and was punished in retaliation for complaining.

Defendant moves for summary judgment on all claims.  The motion is granted in part.  Only the charge of a hostile work environment will be tried.  A jury can evaluate the evidence in the context of current community standards of appropriate working relationships.

 

15-CV-2909 and 15-CV-2928

Armstrong & Kurtz v. Costco Wholesale Corp. & Nice-Pak Prods., Inc., 15-CV-2909
Palmer & Palmer v. CVS Health & Nice-Pak Prods., Inc., 15-CV-2928. 

Five separate but related class actions are before the court.  They are brought by consumers who purchased moist toilet wipes sold by retailer defendants, produced by manufacturer defendants, and marked “flushable.”  Alleged are defects in labeling.  Plaintiffs seek money damages and injunctive relief because they claim the product is not “flushable.”  A hearing was conducted on February 2 and 3, 2017 concerning possible transfer of two cases, among other issues and cases.  None of the parties in the Palmer (15-CV-2928) (Maryland) and Armstrong (15-CV-2909) (Oregon) cases moved to transfer.  But, the court decided sua sponte to transfer these two cases to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland and the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, respectively.  Factual differences and differences in state law favor a transfer of venue..