Skip to main content

Matter of Charter Communications, LLC v. New York State Div. of Human Rights

N.Y. App. Div.June 26, 2026No. 320 TP 25-01673
Defendant WinCharter Communications, LLC$57,500 at issue
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Citation
2026 NY Slip Op 04066
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

RetaliationDiscrimination

Outcome

The Appellate Division unanimously confirmed the New York State Division of Human Rights' determination that Charter Communications retaliated against employee Jon E. Eisen by threatening arbitration and attorneys' fees to dissuade him from pursuing an age discrimination complaint. The court upheld a $7,500 compensatory damages award for mental anguish and a $50,000 civil fine against the employer.

Similar Rulings

Chavez
D.N.M.Apr 2025
Defendant Win
Michael Gonzales v. Charter Communications, LLC
C.D. Cal.Jan 2023
Defendant Win
Rossova
Conn. App. Ct.Apr 2022

The plaintiff sought to recover damages for the alleged wrongful termination of her employment by the defendant, which she claimed was the result of pregnancy discrimination in violation of the Connecticut Fair Employ- ment Practices Act (§ 46a-51 et seq.). The defendant hired the plaintiff to work in its brand and creative strategy department. S, the only other employee in the department, was her supervisor. According to the plain- tiff, the two had a good working relationship through the end of her first month of employment, when the plaintiff informed S that she was pregnant. Thereafter, the relationship deteriorated. According to the plaintiff, S no longer invited her to collaborate on projects, became curt and unfriendly, and began to micromanage and criticize her work. S also started to document the plaintiff's alleged performance deficiencies. Less than five weeks after the plaintiff disclosed her pregnancy, S informed the plaintiff that her employment was being terminated for her poor performance. Following a trial to the jury, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff on the issue of liability. Thereafter, the trial court denied the defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and awarded the plaintiff economic damages in addition to prejudgment interest, postjudgment interest, and attorney's fees. On appeal to this court, the defendant challenged only one element of the plaintiff's prima facie case, namely, whether she established that the termination of her employment occurred under circumstances that gave rise to an inference of discrimination. Held: 1. The trial court properly denied the defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict: a. The plaintiff satisfied her initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination: there was sufficient evidence in the record from which a rational fact finder could have inferred that the termination of the plaintiff's employment was motivated by discriminatory bia

Plaintiff Win
Sonico
S.D. Cal.Jan 2021
Defendant Win
Cody
S.D.N.Y.Jul 2020
Mixed Result

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.