CompFox AI Summary
Plaintiff Shari Dembin sued LVI Services, Inc., LVI Parent Corp., and Scott E. State, alleging discriminatory retaliation under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) and the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The Court had previously granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on Dembin's NYCHRL claims, a ruling confirmed in this Memorandum Order. The primary focus of this order is the defendants' motion for summary judgment on Dembin's remaining ADEA retaliation claim, stemming from her termination after her father complained of age discrimination. Defendants argued their cost-cutting measures were not pretextual and that the Supreme Court's Thompson precedent, concerning family member retaliation under Title VII, did not extend to ADEA claims. The Court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the ADEA claim, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding pretext and concluding that Thompson's reasoning applies to ADEA retaliation claims due to similar statutory language. The ADEA retaliation claim will proceed to trial.
Dembin v. Lvi Services, Inc. is a workers' compensation case decided in District Court, S.D. New York. This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in District Court, S.D. New York.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
Plaintiff Shari Dembin sued LVI Services, Inc., LVI Parent Corp., and Scott E. State, alleging discriminatory retaliation under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) and the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The Court had previously granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on Dembin's NYCHRL claims, a ruling confirmed in this Memorandum Order. The primary focus of this order is the defendants' motion for summary judgment on Dembin's remaining ADEA retaliation claim, stemming from her termination after her father complained of age discrimination. Defendants argued their cost-cutting measures were not pretextual and that the Supreme Court's Thompson precedent, concerning family member retaliation under Title VII, did not extend to ADEA claims. The Court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the ADEA claim, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding pretext and concluding that Thompson's reasoning applies to ADEA retaliation claims due to similar statutory language. The ADEA retaliation claim will proceed to trial.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.