1. Home
  2. |Professionals
  3. |Corey B. Hirsch-Lestienne

Corey B. Hirsch-Lestienne

Associate | He/Him/His

Overview

Corey’s practice focuses on labor and employment disputes, including the investigation and litigation of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation claims. He represents clients in executive compensation disputes, trade secret and confidentiality violations, and restrictive covenant enforcement actions. He has appeared before federal and state courts, filed arguments before various administrative agencies and arbitration panels, and engaged in court-ordered and judge-led mediations. Corey also advises clients on nationwide employment policies and practices, disciplinary actions, separation agreements, and wage and hour laws.

Prior to joining the firm, Corey was a labor and employment attorney at a litigation-focused law firm, where he concentrated his practice on employment litigation, contract disputes, and real estate. Before entering private practice, Corey served as an Assistant Corporation Counsel for the New York City Law Department’s Labor and Employment Law Division.

While studying at Cardozo Law School, Corey served as an articles editor for the Cardozo Law Review and interned for the Honorable Chief Judge Jose L. Linares of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. He also litigated a yearlong federal employment discrimination action with the Bet Tzedek Legal Services Clinic, obtaining a six-figure settlement from the City of New York on behalf of a disabled military veteran.

 

Career & Education

|
    • New York
      Assistant Corporation Counsel, Labor and Employment Law Division, New York City Law Department, 2021–2022
    • New York
      Assistant Corporation Counsel, Labor and Employment Law Division, New York City Law Department, 2021–2022
    • Associate, Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, 2022–2024
    • Associate, Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, 2022–2024
    • Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University, J.D., cum laude, 2020
    • Columbia University, B.A.,

      magna cum laude

      , 2017
    • The Jewish Theological Seminary, B.A., magna cum laude, 2017
    • Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University, J.D., cum laude, 2020
    • Columbia University, B.A.,

      magna cum laude

      , 2017
    • The Jewish Theological Seminary, B.A., magna cum laude, 2017
    • New York
    • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
    • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
    • New York
    • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
    • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York

Corey's Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 12.06.24

What Is a “Place”? Southern District Chief Judge Issues Sui Generis Opinion Holding ADA Title III Protections Do Not Apply to Online-Only Business Websites

On September 30, 2024, Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a putative class action in Mejia v. High Brew Coffee Inc., 1:22-cv-03667-LTS (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 30, 2024), holding that an online-only business’s website is not a place of public accommodation under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Chief Judge Swain’s opinion is the first of its kind for the Southern District and is the latest installment in an ongoing judicial debate about the reach of the ADA’s regulatory reach.  ...

Corey's Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 12.06.24

What Is a “Place”? Southern District Chief Judge Issues Sui Generis Opinion Holding ADA Title III Protections Do Not Apply to Online-Only Business Websites

On September 30, 2024, Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a putative class action in Mejia v. High Brew Coffee Inc., 1:22-cv-03667-LTS (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 30, 2024), holding that an online-only business’s website is not a place of public accommodation under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Chief Judge Swain’s opinion is the first of its kind for the Southern District and is the latest installment in an ongoing judicial debate about the reach of the ADA’s regulatory reach.  ...