Ross v. Mitsui Fudosan, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that “plaintiff must plead facts,” and not “[c]onclusory allegations,” “that show that the employer knew of the employee’s propensity for the type of behavior that caused plaintiff's harm.”
• collecting cases while noting that “New York courts consistently have held that sexual misconduct and related tortious behavior arise from personal motives and do not further an employer’s business, even when committed within the employment context”
• “[T]he purpose of discovery is not to enable [plaintiff] to determine whether he has a viable claim.”
• employers plausibly a party to underlying misconduct because they “did not investigate or discipline” the employees who allegedly engaged in harassment
• “New York courts consistently have held that sexual misconduct and related tortious behavior arise from personal motives and do not further an employer’s business, even when committed within the employment context.”
• “Conclusory allegations of negligent supervision are insufficient to overcome a motion to dismiss.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).