Hall v. Mengel Box Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that employers can be held liable for aiding and abetting their employees’ conduct if the employer “encouraged, condoned, or approved the discriminatory conduct of a sole employee”
• emphasizing that, even in the absence of an employer as a party to the suit, a plaintiff must still prove the liability of that employer as part of its Section 296[6] claim against an individual employee
• deeming it \well-settled in the Second Circuit\ that aiding-and-abetting liability can arise under § 296(6) from an employee's \actual[ ] participat[ion] in the conduct giving rise to a discrimination claim\
• affirming on reconsideration that, although the NYSHRL claims were dismissed against the county for plaintiff’s failure to serve a notice of claim, the individual defendant could be held individually liable for a NYSHRL hostile work environment claim “as an aider and abettor”
• plaintiff could state an aiding and abetting claim regardless of whether other employees contributed to the discrimination
• same, but finding that such employer need not be a party to the case

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).