Legal Opinion
Beckett v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided May 11, 1995No. 1:94-cv-08305PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SCHEINDLIN, District Judge.
Plaintiff Dorothea Beckett (“Beckett”) brings this action against defendants Prudential Insurance Company of America (“Prudential”), Gene Farrell (“Farrell”) and Jeffrey Jack (“Jack”) for alleged violations of § 296 of the New York Human Rights Law (“NYHRL”). Plaintiff asserts three causes of action under § 296: (1) “hostile environment” sexual harassment; (2) quid pro quo sexual harassment; and (3) retaliation for complaining of the alleged sexual harassment. Prudential moves to dismiss all of these claims pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). 1…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Longines-Wittnauer Watch Co. v. Barnes & Reinecke, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1965
- Clement SUMNER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1990
- Hoffritz for Cutlery, Inc. And Edwin Jay, Inc. v. Amajac, Ltd. And Jack E. AyersCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1985
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Bensusan Restaurant Corporation v. Richard B. King, Individually and Doing Business as the Blue NoteCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1997
- Bensusan Restaurant Corp. v. KingDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1996
- Schuler v. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS, LLPCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2008
- Wynn v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 2002
- Thackurdeen v. Duke Univ.District Court, S.D. New York · 2015
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.