Action Star Enterprise Co. v. Kaijet Technology International Ltd.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that if a quid pro quo claim “involves only unfulfilled threats, it should be classified as a hostile work environment claim” (citation omitted)
• holding “[r]espondeat superior is not an independent cause of action, but a theory that must attach to an underlying claim…[and] to the extent that ‘respondeat superior’ is set forth as an independent cause of action, it is dismissed.”
• finding no dispute that the defendant employer exercised reasonable care in responding to the plaintiff’s complaint of harassment by a coworker
• explaining that “an employer does not owe a special duty to an individual employee, because it has an obligation to treat all employees in the same manner” (citing Cucchi v. New York City Off–Track Betting Corp., 818 F. Supp. 647, 656 (S.D.N.Y. 1993))
• finding supervisors were employers because of the power to hire and fire employees
• finding Notice of Claim sufficient where plaintiff “indirectly mentioned” cause of action for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress by stating in her Notice she suffered “loss of self esteem and emotional stress”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).