Redd v. New York Division of Parole

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that plaintiff’s sworn 16 statements that her supervisor engaged in intentionally intrusive conduct and 17 thrice touched her breasts precluded summary judgment
• finding that three incidents of touching over a five month period constituted evidence of purposeful harassment
• holding three instances of touching the plaintiff’s breast by her supervisor could constitute a hostile work environment
• stressing that “a plaintiff need not show that her hostile working environment was both severe and pervasive; only that it was sufficiently severe or sufficiently pervasive” (emphasis in original)
• holding evidence that female harasser “touched, rubbed up against, and felt those gender-specific, intimate parts of the [female] employee’s body” supports claim for discrimination “because of” sex
• noting that “summary judgment should be used sparingly,” when considering “fact questions such as state of mind or intent are at issue”—questions at issue when determining “whether the plaintiff’s sex caused the conduct at issue”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).