'Aghast' at Defenses, Judge Lets Harassment Case Proceed

, New York Law Journal


With strong language and a swipe at defense counsel, a judge in Manhattan refused to dismiss a sexual harassment claim filed by a woman who said her boss exposed himself to her, propositioned her and made her stand next to him while he urinated.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

Originally appeared in print as 'Aghast' at Defenses, Judge Lets Sex Harassment Case Proceed

What's being said

  • Ravi Batra

    Curious. In a motion to dismiss, the court, any court, must accept the factual allegations as true and treat a defendant‘s motion to dismiss, any defendant‘s motion to dismiss, as assuming the facts as true, there is still no case.

    How then can a defendant, any defendant, say the court was wrong to accept the plaintiff‘s facts as true when that is the very obligation the defendant imposes upon the court in a motion to dismiss?

    The mere fact that a case goes "media" doesn‘t permit any officer of the court to denigrate the process and devalue the judiciary‘s role.

    While a defendant, any defendant, has a right to appeal, it does not get to misinform the public as if a MTD was SJM.

    Dated: 6/2/14
    Ravi Batra

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202657625165

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.