Sundaram v. Brookhaven National Laboratories

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that, under New York law, the implied covenant of good faith “does not create new contractual rights that are not enumerated in the express contract”
• noting that “the parties ... assumed that the 300-day limitation period applies”
• finding no prima facie showing where there was no evidence that decisionmakers were aware of the plaintiff’s protected activity
• “To take advantage of the continuing violation exception, however, a plaintiff must clearly assert that theory of timeliness both in his EEOC charge and in his complaint.”
• “Because complaints filed with the EEOC are deemed constructively to be cross-filed with the NYDHR, the statute is also tolled during the pendency of a claim filed with the EEOC.” (citations omitted)
• where the federal government purchased a research lab in the State of New York, and where the deed granted exclusive federal jurisdiction over the land, the NY state human rights law did not apply to activities that occurred on the property

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).