Legal Opinion
Boodram v. Brooklyn Developmental Center
Civil Court of the City of New York
Decided December 16, 2003PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Jack M. Battaglia, J.
In its verdict, the jury determined that plaintiff Indra Boo-dram was subjected to a hostile work environment because of her sex; that the hostile work environment was acquiesced in or condoned by her employer, defendant Brooklyn Developmental Center (see Matter of State Div. of Human Rights v St. Elizabeth’s Hosp., 66 NY2d 684, 687 [1985]); and that Ms. Boodram suffered damages as a proximate result of the hostile work environment, which the jury assessed at a total of $798,000. At trial, after all of the evidence was in, the Center moved pursuant to…
2Cases cited73 opinions
- Toure v. Avis Rent a Car Systems, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 2002
- 300 Gramatan Avenue Associates v. State Division of Human RightsNew York Court of Appeals · 1978
- Julia M. O'ROuRke v. City of ProvidenceCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2001
- Pollard v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Barbara ANNIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER, Ernest J. Colaneri, and Anthony M. Mosca, Defendants-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1998
68 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Stampf v. Long Island RailroadCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2014
- Sass v. MTA Bus Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 2014
- Brady v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 2006
- Conti v. DoeDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2020
- Stampf v. TriggCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2014