LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

SARA LEVIN, et al. v YESHIVA UNIVERSITY ET AL Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CourtCode: AP, CourtName: NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, Plaintiff: SARA LEVIN, et al., State: NEW YORK, UniqueCaseRef: NE>AP>I01_0089, Housing, Discrimination, Students, Human Rights Law, City Human Rights, York City, State Human Rights, Practice, Policy, Disparate Impact, Nyc Admin, Levin, Lesbian, Gay, Sexual Orientation, Yeshiva University, Employment, Accommodations, Legal Defense, Education Fund, Executive Law, Supreme Court, Aecom, Appellate Division, Comparison Group, Sara Levin, Prohibiting , ContentID: 120248697

Case Documents
1 2001-07-02 OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 120607
15 pages
HTML
Total Documents: 1 document , 15 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
DISCRIMINATION
STUDENTS
HUMAN RIGHTS LAW
CITY HUMAN RIGHTS
YORK CITY
STATE HUMAN RIGHTS
PRACTICE
POLICY
PLAINTIFFS
DISPARATE IMPACT
NYC ADMIN
LEVIN
LESBIAN
GAY
COURT
DEFENDANTS
SEXUAL ORIENTATION
YESHIVA UNIVERSITY
EMPLOYMENT
ACCOMMODATIONS
LEGAL DEFENSE
EDUCATION FUND
EXECUTIVE LAW
SUPREME COURT
AECOM
APPELLATE DIVISION
COMPARISON GROUP
SARA LEVIN
PROHIBITING


   1 No. 76
   Sara Levin, et al.,
   Appellants,
   v.
   Yeshiva University et al.,
   Respondents.
     _________________________________________________________________

   2001 NY Int. 89

   July 2, 2001

   This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
   in the New York Reports.

   James D. Esseks, for appellants.
   Mark A. Jacoby, for respondents.
   Attorney General of the State of New York; Lambda Legal Defense and
   Education Fund, et al.; Audre Lorde Project, et al.; Association of
   the Bar of the City of New York; NAACP Legal Defense and Educational
   Fund, Inc., et al.; Gay and Lesbian Law Students Alliance et al.,
   amici curić.
     _________________________________________________________________

   CIPARICK, J.:

   The New York City Human Rights Law, like the State Human Rights Law,
   protects certain groups from policies or practices that discriminate
   against them in areas such as employment, public accommodations and
   housing (see, Executive Law § 296; NYC Admin. Code § 8-107). The
   City's Human Rights Law goes the additional step of prohibiting
   policies or practices which, though neutral on their face and neutral
   in intent, have an unjustified disparate impact upon one or more of
   the covered groups. In contrast to the State law, the New York City
   law explicitly extends protection to persons discriminated against on
   the basis of sexual orientation.

   Plaintiffs Sara Levin and Maggie Jones are lesbians enrolled at
   defendant Yeshiva University's Albert Einstein College of Medicine
   (AECOM) in the Bronx.(1) Plaintiff Gilda Wildfire appears as an
   officer of AECOM's lesbian and gay students' organization. The
   complaint alleges the following facts, which we must accept as true
   for present purposes: Yeshiva maintains a number of different sized
   apartments near AECOM for the housing of medical students. AECOM's
   housing policy restricts university-owned housing to medical students,
   their spouses and children. All apartment vacancies are filled from a
SNIPPETS:
  • Attorney General of the State of New York; Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, et al.;
  • The New York City Human Rights Law, like the State Human Rights Law, protects certain groups
  • The City's Human Rights Law goes the additional step of prohibiting policies or practices
  • In contrast to the State law, the New York City law explicitly extends protection to persons
  • Plaintiffs Sara Levin and Maggie Jones are lesbians enrolled at defendant Yeshiva
  • Pursuant to its policy, AECOM informed her that she had to produce proof of marriage in order
  • Plaintiffs commenced this action in 1998 claiming that defendants' housing policy
  • The Appellate Division affirmed, agreeing that there was no discrimination or disparate
  • Because plaintiffs have pleaded allegations sufficient to raise an issue of fact as to
  • Plaintiffs, as members of a protected class, allege a violation of the New York City Human
  • Excluding a large portion of the class benefitted by this policy from the disparate impact
  • Plaintiffs are medical students at defendant Einstein College of Medicine, a division of the
  •    |