Opinion
October 15, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.).
Assuming in plaintiffs' favor, as the IAS Court did, that dating is a protected recreational activity under Labor Law § 201-d ( see, Pasch v. Katz Media Corp., 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11153 [S.D.N.Y., Aug. 7, 1995, Patterson, J. (94 Civ. 8554 [RPP])]; contra, State of New York v. Wal-Mart Stores, 207 A.D.2d 150 ), the alleged harassment was not so severe or pervasive as to support plaintiffs' claims of constructive discharge ( see, Spence v. Maryland Cas. Co., 995 F.2d 1147, 1156). We would also note that it appears from the complaint that plaintiffs made resignation their option of first resort, rather than attempting to address the alleged discrimination "from within existing employment relations" ( Halbrook v. Reichhold Chems., 735 F. Supp. 121, 125 [S.D.N.Y.]; see also, Hanenburg v. Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co., 118 F.3d 570, 575 [8th Cir.]); Clowes v. Allegheny Val. Hosp., 991 F.2d 1159, 1161-1162 [3d Cir.]). We have considered plaintiffs' other arguments and find them to be unavailing.
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.