Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Action Alleging Retaliatory Termination
In Thomas v. iStar Fin., Inc., No. 07-5327, an action claiming that plaintiff's termination was in retaliation for complaints he had made about his supervisor's alleged misconduct, the court affirmed partial judgment for plaintiff where 1) plaintiff had no mechanism by which to challenge the district court's constitutional analysis related to punitive damages; 2) no reasonable jury could have found the "occasional and isolated" events plaintiff complained of were severe or pervasive enough to create an abusive work environment; and 3) defendants could not point to anywhere in the record where they objected to the district court submitting the issue of back-pay damages to the jury.
As the court wrote: "In August 2003, iStar Financial, Inc. ("iStar") fired Kenneth Thomas. A year and a half later, Thomas sued iStar and one of his supervisors there, Ed Baron, (collectively "defendants") for various violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and parallel provisions of the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"), N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-101 et seq. After a trial in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Marrero, J.), a jury found that Thomas's termination was in retaliation for complaints he had made about Baron, and it awarded compensatory and punitive damages."