Caridad v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

45 Citing briefs

  1. Cajamarca v. Regal Entertainment Group et al

    MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted. Plaintiff's federal claims are dismissed with prejudice and her state law claims are dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk isdirected to enter judgment accordingly. Ordered

    Filed May 31, 2012

    Thus, the employer that adopts appropriate training and reporting procedures is not required to successfully prevent harassing behavior under prong one, but must take reasonable steps to promptly correct a hostile environment once the employer has knowledge of its existence. See Faragher, 524 U.S. at 806- 07, 118 S. Ct. at 2292; Leopold, 239 F.3d at 245; Caridad, 191 F .3d at 295. Prong two, in turn, addresses the employee's conduct once the harassing behavior has begun, and adopts from the general theory of damages the principle that an employee should not recover for harm that could have been avoided had she reported the misconduct.

  2. Moore, et al v. Chertoff

    MOTION to Certify Class and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof

    Filed August 4, 2008

    Use of such statistical evidence to raise an inference of class-wide discrimination and satisfy commonality is well accepted. See, e.g., McReynolds, 208 F.R.D. at 441; Caridad, 191 F.3d at 292. The strong statistical evidence presented here shows that there is racial discrimination in the MPP’s policies and practices that impact all class members in the same general manner: African-American Agents are excluded from the best qualified list at a higher rate than white Agents, and when they make the best qualified list, are again disadvantaged by their MPP scores and are selected for promotion at a rate lower than white Agents.

  3. In Re: Parmalat Securities Litigation

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 679 MOTION to Certify Class Lead Plaintiffs Notice of Renewed Motion for Class Certification.. Document

    Filed September 21, 2006

    Instead, all that is required on a class certification motion is that the plaintiff “make ‘some showing’ that the stocks in question traded on an efficient market.” IPO, 227 F.R.D. at 107 (quoting Caridad, 191 F.3d at 292). On a class certification motion, Plaintiffs must merely show “that they will be able to make a colorable presentation at summary judgment or trial as to the propriety of applying the fraud on the market theory.”

  4. Patti, et al v. Xerox Corp, et al

    Memorandum in Opposition re MOTION to Certify Class

    Filed September 5, 2008

    “Thus, it follows that the appropriate analysis of typicality must involve a comparison of the plaintiffs’ claims or defenses with those of the absent class members,” Deiter v. Microsoft Corp., 436 F.3d 461, 467 (4th Cir. 2006), and that comparison focuses on whether an important issue of law or fact will “occupy essentially the same degree of centrality to the named plaintiff’s claim as to that of other members of the proposed class.” Caridad, 191 F.3d at 293 (internal quotation marks omitted), disavowed on other grounds by IPO, 471 F.3d at 42. Plaintiffs flout this well-established comparative inquiry, arguing instead that every ERISA breach of fiduciary duty claim “necessarily” satisfies the typicality requirement.

  5. Tremblay v. Chevron Stations, Inc.

    Reply to Opposition re MOTION to Certify Class

    Filed April 22, 2008

    As District Judge Patel noted in Kurihara v. Best Buy Company, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64224 (N.D. Cal. 2007): An evidentiary hearing on class certification is not required, Bouman v. Block, 940 F.2d 1211, 1232 (9th Cir. 1991), and the court should not weigh conflicting expert evidence. See, e.g. Caridad v. Metro-North Commuter R.R., 191 F.3d 283, 292–93 (2d Cir. 1999). At this early stage, robust gatekeeping of expert evidence is not required; rather the court must query only whether expert evidence is “useful in evaluating whether class certification requirements have been met.”

  6. Schmidt et al v. Shasta County Marshal's Office et al

    MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT

    Filed August 25, 2016

    Moreover, a plaintiff’s alleged “constructive termination,” even if proven true, will not amount to a “tangible employment action” barring the Ellerth/Faragher defense. See Penn. State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129, 148-49 (2004) (holding that that a constructive discharge, in itself, does not constitute a tangible employment action that bars the Ellerth/Faragher defense); Alberter v. McDonald’s, 70 F. Supp. 2d 1138 (D. Nev. 1999) (constructive discharge is not a tangible employment action under Ellerth); Caridad v. Metro-North, 191 F.3d 283, 294-95 (3d Cir. 1999) (same). Case 2:14-cv-02471-MCE-CMK Document 25-1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 48 of 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 R EN N E SL O A N H O LT ZM A N S A K A I L LP A tto rn ey s a t L aw -41- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT - Case No. 2:14-CV-02471-MCE significant immediate measure an employer can take in response to a ... harassment complaint is to launch a prompt investigation to determine whether the complaint is justified.”).

  7. Divljanovic et al v. Saks & Company

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 47 MOTION to Strike Document No. 44 / Notice of Defendant's Motion to Strike the Class Allegations. . Document

    Filed October 15, 2015

    Commonality “requires that the disputed issue of law or fact occupy essentially the same degree of centrality to the named plaintiff’s claim as to that of other members of the proposed Case 1:14-cv-07533-SHS Document 48 Filed 10/15/15 Page 18 of 31 13 class.” Caridad v. Metro-North Commuter R.R., 191 F.3d 283, 293 (2d Cir. 1999). As described by the Supreme Court, the relevant issue for class certification is not the “common questions” but the ability of the class to “generate common answers.”

  8. Tart v. Lions Gate Entertainment Corporation et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 26 MOTION for Settlement - preliminary approval of class and collective action settlement. . Document

    Filed September 11, 2015

    The Named Plaintiffs, like every member of the putative class, have therefore been injured by Defendants in the same manner. See Kelen v. World Fin. Network Nat'l Bank, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112079 at * 11 (S.D.N.Y. July 28, 2014); Damassia v. Duane Reade, Inc., 250 F.R.D. 152, 158 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (citing Caridad v. Metro-North Commuter R.R., 191 F.3d 283, 293 (2d Cir. 1999) (“Typicality ‘does not require that the factual background of each named plaintiff's claim be identical to that of all class members; rather, it requires that the disputed issue of law or fact occupy essentially the same degree of centrality to the named plaintiff's claim as to that of other members of the proposed class.’”) D. Fair and Adequate Representation Plaintiffs and Class Counsel will fairly and adequately represent and safeguard the rights and interests of the class.

  9. Pryor v. Jaffe & Asher LLP et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 53 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment . . Document

    Filed October 27, 2014

    See Pa. State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129, 148, 124 S. Ct. 2342, 2355, 159 L.Ed.2d 204 (2004) (constructive discharge not a tangible employment action when the offending supervisor took no official act against the plaintiff); Caridad v. Metro–North Railroad, 191 F.3d 283, 294 (2d Cir.1999) (constructive discharge not a tangible employment action). In a pure constructive discharge case such as this, J&A is entitled to summary judgment if it can establish that: (i) it exercised “reasonable care in preventing and correcting any sexually harassing behavior”; and (ii) “the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise.” Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 765, 118 S.Ct. at 2270.

  10. Cunningham et al v. Electronic Data Systmes Corp. et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re:

    Filed September 19, 2014

    In practice, Rule 23(a)’s commonality and typicality criteria “tend to merge’ because ‘[b]oth serve as guideposts for determining whether … the named plaintiff’s claim and the class claims are so inter-related that the interests of the class members will be fairly and adequately protected in their absence.” Caridad v. Metro-N. Commuter R.R., 191 F. 3d 283, 291 (2d Cir. 1999). At issue in this case is the nature of Defendants’ having classified the positions at issue as non-exempt under federal and state wage laws.