Pire v. Otero

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that claim may be directed at persons who aid and abet an employer’s violation of the statute
• noting that a plaintiff could not maintain an action against co-employees under an aiding and abetting theory unless there was an indication that the co-employees were acting in concert with the employer
• affirming denial of summary judgment on claims that co-employees aided and abetted discrimination by their employer
• affirming trial court’s denial of summary judgment on claim of IIED based on sexual harassment, when plaintiff also brought an HRL claim
• considering factors including requirement that worker wear the company uniform, follow company procedures, attend mandatory meetings, sign in and out of the office, and coordinate vacation time with supervisor
• clarifying, after an earlier decision cast doubt on plaintiffs’ ability to sue coworkers under the aid-and-abet provision, that co-employees may be held liable for aiding and abetting the discrimination of an employer so long as the employer itself is susceptible to suit

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).