Feingold v. New York

How courts have described this case

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

• ruling that an issue of fact existed as to retaliation causation where supervisors recommended terminating the plaintiff two weeks after his complaint
• holding that an employee experienced pervasive discrimination where he was singled out on an “almost daily” basis through hostile remarks and overt animosity
• holding that same standards under the NYCHRL and NYSHRL apply and reversing grant of summary judgment as to individual defendants
• holding that the plaintiff’s § 1983 claim was “barred by the Eleventh Amendment because the DMV is a state agency”
• concluding that two weeks was sufficient temporal proximity to support an inference of discrimination
• holding that plaintiffs Section 1983 claims against the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles (the “DMV”) were “clearly barred by the Eleventh Amendment because the DMV is a state agency”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).