Cioffi v. New York Community Bank

How courts have described this case

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

• addressing prejudgment interest in a case involving claims for sexual harassment under Title VII and the New York Human Rights Law
• reducing lodestar amount 2 by 15% where plaintiff prevailed on her claim of retaliation but did not succeed on her sexual 3 harassment—hostile work environment cause of action, had her quid pro quo claim dismissed, and 4 failed to obtain any emotional distress damages
• “Recent cases in the Eastern District of New York have held that $175.00 to $200.00 per hour is an appropriate rate for a solo practitioner.”
• “Since punitive damages are not intended to provide full compensation to plaintiff, there is no basis for applying prejudgment interest to the punitive damage award in this case.”
• “[Tjravel time ... is to be reimbursed at one-half of the determined hourly rate.”
• “An employer’s written anti-discrimination policy, by itself, is not enough . . . [A]n employer must show good faith efforts to enforce its anti-discrimination policy”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).