State v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Dissent
Yesawich Jr., J. (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent, for I find defendant’s central thesis, apparently accepted by the majority, that the employment policy at issue only prohibits romantic entanglements and not other types of social interaction, to be wholly without merit. While the majority encumbers the word "dating” with an "amorous interest” component, there is nothing in defendant’s fraternization policy, its application—defendant does not allege that its two former employees manifested an intimate or amatory attitude toward each other—or even in defendant’s own definition of a "date”,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Berkeley v. ParkNew York Supreme Court · 1965
- People v. HamiltonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986
- Harnett v. Village of Ballston SpaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989