Hancock v. Payne

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that Plaintiff was “bypassed” for the CRS 3 promotion on “8/9/2018”
• finding that plaintiff had not exhausted her Title VII claims because “[a]t no point does the [EEOC Charge] document reference, even in passing, sexual harassment or any other discrimination on the basis of race, gender, or any other group protected by Title VII”
• granting a motion to dismiss where the “[p]laintiff’s failure to exhaust her Title VII claims [wa]s clear from the face of the complaint” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• applying same standards for hostile work environment claims under Title VII and the ADA
• “[T]here is no individual liability under the ADA.” (citing Lane v. Maryhaven Ctr. of Hope, 944 F. Supp. 158, 162 (E.D.N.Y. 1996))
• “[T]he rejection of a proposed accommodation is a single completed action when taken[,] although the effect of the employer’s rejection continues to be felt by the employee for as long as [she] remains employed.” (alterations omitted

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).