DeGaetano v. Smith Barney, Inc.
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
983 F. Supp. 459 (1997)
- Written by Catherine Cotovsky, JD
Facts
Alicia DeGaetano sued her former employer Smith Barney, Inc. (Smith Barney) (defendant) and her former supervisor Frederick Hessler (defendant), pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and various state laws for sex discrimination after Smith Barney refused to take any action in response to Hessler’s unwanted sexual advances towards DeGaetano, thereby forcing DeGaetano to resign her position at Smith Barney. DeGaetano also sued Hessler individually for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Smith Barney moved to enforce an arbitration clause in DeGaetano’s employment agreement, which stated in part that each party to the arbitration would pay its own legal expenses. The court granted Smith Barney’s motion, and the parties were compelled to engage in arbitration, during which DeGaetano submitted a request that she be awarded her attorney’s fees on the grounds that Title VII provided for prevailing plaintiffs to recover their attorney’s fees. The arbitration panel rendered a decision in DeGaetano’s favor for over $90,000 to be imposed jointly and severally against Smith Barney and Hessler but declined to award DeGaetano her attorney’s fees. DeGaetano appealed to the district court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cote, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
