Murphy v. Kirkland
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
*796To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, the complainant Ronald Maher was required to show that “(1) [he] has engaged in activity protected by Executive Law § 296, (2) [the employer] was aware that [he] participated in the protected activity, (3) [he] suffered from a disadvantageous employment action based upon [his] activity, and (4) there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action taken by [the employer]” (Pace v Ogden Servs. Corp., 257 AD2d 101, 104 [1999]; see Cesar v Highland Care Ctr., Inc., 37 AD3d 393, 394 [2007]). “Once this initial showing is…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Patrowich v. Chemical BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
- Father Belle Community Center v. New York State Division of Human RightsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
- Pace v. Ogden Services Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
- Cesar v. Highland Care Center, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
- Eastport Associates, Inc. v. New York State Division of Human RightsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Suffolk Laundry Services, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 2014
- Ananiadis v. Mediterranean Gyros Products, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
- Adeniran v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Matter of New York State Div. of Human Rights v. Team Taco Mexico, Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
- Matter of State Div. of Human Rights v. Steve's Pier One, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.