You are here: / / Plaintiff Estopped from Bringing State Retaliation Claim/Issue Decided...

Plaintiff Estopped from Bringing State Retaliation Claim/Issue Decided by District Court Which Dismissed Plaintiff’s Federal Title VII Constructive Discharge Claim

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, the First Department determined plaintiff was estopped from bringing her retaliation action in state court because the issue raised had necessarily been determined when the District Court dismissed her federal complaint. The plaintiff alleged she was retaliated against after she told management about allegedly discriminatory practices. The retaliation was alleged to have been the failure to act quickly to address a dispute with a coworker:

The doctrine of collateral estoppel applies where “[f]irst, the identical issue necessarily must have been decided in the prior action and be decisive of the present action, and second, the party to be precluded from relitigating the issue . . . had a full and fair opportunity to contest the prior determination” … . “The party seeking the benefit of collateral estoppel has the burden of demonstrating the identity of the issues in the present litigation and the prior determination, whereas the party attempting to defeat its application has the burden of establishing the absence of a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior action” (id. at 456).In considering plaintiff’s Title VII constructive discharge claim, the District Court examined, as it was obliged to do, the question of whether defendant “intentionally subjected her to an intolerable work environment”… . An integral part …of the court’s determination that defendant had not done so was its explicit finding that defendant “responded promptly after [p]laintiff’s complaint” and “the next day … attempted to address [p]laintiff’s concerns within the constraints of [defendant’s] staffing situation”… . Simmons-Grant v Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, 2014 NY Slip Op 01407, 1st Dept 2-27-14

 

You might also like
APPELLANT, WHO HAD PUT UP HER OWN MONEY FOR DEFENDANT’S BAIL, WAS ENTITLED TO REMISSION OF THE BAIL FORFEITED WHEN DEFENDANT MISSED HIS COURT DATE; SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE AFFIDAVITS AND PSYCHIATRIST’S LETTER EXPLAINING THE MENTAL-HEALTH-RELATED REASONS FOR DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO APPEAR (FIRST DEPT).
THIRD-DEGREE POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE (PENAL LAW 220.16 (12)) IS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF THIRD-DEGREE POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE (PENAL LAW 220.16 (1)); GUILTY PLEA VACACTED (FIRST DEPT).
THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S WORK ON A BOILER WAS ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OR PART OF A LARGER COVERED ACTIVITY IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) ACTION; DEFENDANTS DID NOT SUPERVISE OR CONTROL PLAINTIFF’S WORK REQUIRING DISMISSAL OF THE LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTIONS (FIRST DEPT).
NONSIGNATORY WHICH RECEIVED A DIRECT BENEFIT FROM AN AGREEMENT WITH AN ARBITRATION PROVISION IS SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION (FIRST DEPT).
THE AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT PROVIDES NO BROADER SCOPE FOR THE SEARCH THAN WOULD A WARRANT ISSUED BASED ON THE SAME FACTS; HERE THE SMALL AMOUNT OF MARIJUANA ON THE CONSOLE OF DEFENDANT’S CAR DID NOT PROVIDE PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH THE TRUNK WHERE A FIREARM WAS FOUND (FIRST DEPT).
Failure to Mention the Rate of Compensation Required Dismissal of the Contract Cause of Action Under the Statute of Frauds/However the Allegation Defendant Employed Plaintiff Was Sufficient to Allow the Quantum Meruit Cause of Action to Go Forward
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE WAS COVERED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED UNDER THE POLICY AND ATTACHED A CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE TO HER COMPLAINT; A CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE IS NOT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF AN INSURANCE CONTRACT; PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
Cause of Action for Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Should Be Dismissed When It Is the Same as the Breach of Contract Claim

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Court Has Common-Law “Interest of Justice” Authority to Modify Its Own Order... Statements to Police Officer by Victim at the Scene Were “Nontestimonial”...