Mingguo Cho v. City of N.Y.

2 Citing cases

  1. Wang v. Palmisano

    51 F. Supp. 3d 521 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)   Cited 42 times
    Noting that the plaintiff's two separate FLSA actions—one filed in Massachusetts state court, and one filed in Massachusetts federal court—were dismissed without prejudice, and that "suit dismissed without prejudice ... [are] treated for statute of limitations purposes as if [they] had never been filed"

    However, because, under both federal and state law, each act of retaliation or discrimination may be a discrete event that triggers a new claim and therefore a new limitations period, at least some of Plaintiff's claims might be timely, depending on the dates on which Plaintiff received notice of his rejections for the “many” applications he submitted over a period of “many years.” See Cho v. City of New York, No. 11–CV–1658, 2012 WL 4376047, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. July 25, 2012) (finding, in the context of an ADEA claim, that a “ ‘refusal to hire’ constitutes ... a discrete act of discrimination[,]” that “[d]iscrete acts of discrimination or retaliation are deemed to have occurred on the day that they happened,” and that “[i]f a plaintiff alleges multiple discriminatory acts, each individual act ordinarily triggers a new clock for filing charges alleging that act” (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted)), adopted by2012 WL 4364492 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2012), aff'd,549 Fed.Appx. 15 (2d Cir.2013); Everett v. 357 Corp., 453 Mass. 585, 904 N.E.2d 733, 751 (2009) (finding that a claim for refusal to rehire an employee two years after termination constituted an independent claim that accrued when the request was denied, and noting that “the failure to rehire an employee is considered a discrete, separate act that does not draw other allegedly discriminatory acts into its scope”); cf. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 114, 122 S.Ct. 2061,

  2. Pacheco v. Comprehensive Pharmacy Servs.

    12 Civ. 1606 (AJN) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 19, 2013)   Cited 7 times
    Finding defendant's statement implying that "Dominican were not 'very nice'" was "too isolated, remote, and benign to give rise to an inference of discrimination"

    Plaintiff alleges that Defendants unlawfully terminated her in retaliation for filing a complaint of discrimination with the New York State Division of Human Rights ("NYSDHR") and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") in violation of Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL. The Court begins by considering Plaintiff's NYSHRL and Title VII together, as they are analyzed "in the same manner;" retaliation claims brought under NYCHRL are analyzed "more liberally" and must be considered separately. See Mingguo Cho v. City of New York, No. 11-cv-1658, 2012 WL 4376047, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. July 25, 2012) (citing Dressierv. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., 2012 WL 1038600, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2012); Loeffler v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp., 582 F.3d 268, 278 (2d Cir. 2009)). As previously discussed, is some confusion in the record regarding the agency with which the August 24, 2011, discrimination complaint was filed.