You are here: / / State and City Human Rights Law Retaliation Claims Were Not Precluded by...
, ,

State and City Human Rights Law Retaliation Claims Were Not Precluded by Dismissal of Federal Retaliation Claims Pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act—Different Protected Activities Involved

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter, determined plaintiff’s state and city human rights law retaliation claims against her employer were not precluded by the dismissal of her federal action under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA):

Under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, a party is precluded from relitigating in a subsequent action an issue clearly raised and decided against that party in a prior action … . To successfully invoke this doctrine, two requirements must be met. First, the issue in the second action must be identical to an issue which was raised, necessarily decided and material in the first action. Second, the party to be precluded must have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the earlier action … . Where a federal court declines to exercise jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s state law claims, collateral estoppel can still bar those claims provided that the federal court decided issues identical to those raised by the plaintiff’s state claims … . The party seeking to invoke collateral estoppel bears the burden of establishing identity of issue … . Applying these principles, we conclude that defendants have not met their burden of showing that plaintiff’s state and city claims of retaliatory termination are barred by collateral estoppel. The retaliation claims asserted here are entirely distinct from those raised and decided in the federal action. There, the court only decided whether plaintiff was retaliated against for exercising her FMLA rights. Here, however, plaintiff does not claim retaliation based on her exercise of FMLA rights, but instead alleges retaliation, under the State and City Human Rights Laws, based on entirely different instances of protected activity. Specifically, plaintiff alleges she was discharged for filing a written complaint about her reprimand for allegedly reading a book during work hours, and for verbally complaining about an alleged inappropriate comment. Because the federal court’s decision did not address either of these claimed bases for retaliation, it cannot be said that the federal action “necessarily decided” the same issues raised by the State and City retaliation claims, and thus collateral estoppel does not apply… .  Ji Sun Jennifer Kim v Goldberg, Weprin, Finkel, Goldstein, LLP, 2014 NY Slip Op 03961, 1st Dept 5-3-14

 

You might also like
PHOTOGRAPH OF SIDEWALK DEFECT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
A LOOSE DOOR HANDLE CAUSED THE GLASS DOOR TO SHATTER; DEFENDANTS PRESENTED INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF WHEN THE DOOR HANDLE WAS LAST INSPECTED AND THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (FIRST DEPT). ​
Questions of Fact Raised Whether Plaintiff’s Infant-Daughter’s Physical and Mental Deficiencies Were Caused by Inadequate Medical Treatment Prior to and During Birth, Despite Indications Plaintiff’s Daughter Was Born Healthy
THE QUESTIONNAIRES FILLED OUT BY APPLICANTS FOR CITY JUDICIAL POSITIONS WERE PROTECTED FROM THE FOIL REQUEST BY THE PERSONAL PRIVACY EXEMPTION; AN APPELLATE COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER AN UNPRESERVED ISSUE IN AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING (FIRST DEPT).
THE ADMISSION OF AN UNNOTICED STATEMENT BY DEFENDANT WAS NOT HARMLESS ERROR; ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE HAD DISCLOSED THE INTERVIEW IN WHICH THE STATEMENT WAS MADE, THEY DID NOT DISCLOSE THE SPECIFIC STATEMENT; THE DEFENDANT MOVED TO PRECLUDE THE STATEMENT AT TRIAL (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF A DEFECTIVE TAILGATE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED WHETHER THE INVOICES FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES WERE “REASONABLE;” THE ONLY QUESTION IN AN ACCOUNT-STATED ACTION IS WHETHER THE CLIENT OBJECTED TO THE AMOUNTS OF THE INVOICES (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED ATTEMPTING TO HOLD BACK A HAND TRUCK WITH A 500 POUND LOAD AS HE WAS DESCENDING STAIRS; IT WAS POSSIBLE TO LOWER THE LOAD USING RIGGING IN AN ELEVATOR SHAFTWAY BUT PLAINTIFF WAS DIRECTED TO USE THE STAIRS; PLAINTIFF WAS PROPERLY AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

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

Question of Fact Whether Defendant’s Negligence Precluded Her Reliance... Mechanics of a Motion to Change Venue Explained