United States v. Guzman-Hernandez

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the plaintiff’s allegations “that he had to work more than other hall directors” sufficed to plead an inference of discriminatory intent, despite “the Complaint [being] sparse on specifics with respect to how his colleagues are similarly situated to him”
• dismissing gender-based hostile work environment claim based on supervisor’s statements to plaintiff “that he could not wear shorts” and that “dressing in cool temperature attire was a women thing”
• denying a motion to dismiss where the plaintiff alleged that “LIU failed to interview him and instead gave the position to Lazarus, a less-qualified individual outside of Plaintiff’s protected class”
• denial to attend training not adverse employment action because material harm from denial not shown
• alteration in the original; quoting Risco v. McHugh, 868 F. Supp. 2d 75, 100 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)
• the denial of an opportunity to earn additional compensation constitutes an adverse employment action

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).