You are here: / / Arbitration Award Based Upon Collective Bargaining Agreement Does Not Have...
, ,

Arbitration Award Based Upon Collective Bargaining Agreement Does Not Have a Preclusive Effect Upon a Subsequent Employment Discrimination Action Based on the Same Facts

The Second Department noted that an arbitration award based upon the terms of a collective bargaining agreement does not bar a subsequent employment discrimination action under the doctrine of collateral estoppel.  Here the employee was terminated based upon excessive absences.  He subsequently  brought a discrimination action alleging the employee failed to accommodate his disability.  (The Second Department determined the “disability” alleged by the employee did not require accommodation):

An arbitrator’s award may be given preclusive effect in a subsequent judicial proceeding … . However, arbitration is an inappropriate forum for the disposition of an employment discrimination claim where “the arbitrator’s sole task is to effectuate the intent of the parties in connection with the collective-bargaining agreement, and not to consider a statutory claim of discrimination . . . The violation of these contractual and statutory rights by the same factual occurrence does not vitiate their separate nature” … . Thus, the arbitrator’s decision did not have preclusive effect on the plaintiff’s separate action based on unlawful discrimination in employment …, and the complaint is not barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Caban v New York Methodist Hosp, 2014 NY Slip Op 05292, 2nd Dept 7-16-14

 

You might also like
THE INJURED PARTY WAS STRUCK WITH A BATON IN AN ALTERCATION OUTSIDE A BAR; IT WAS ALLEGED THE INJURY WAS ACCIDENTAL; THE INSURER SOUGHT A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RE: THE OBLIGATION TO DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE INCIDENT FELL OUTSIDE THE COVERAGE OF THE POLICY (NO DISCLAIMER REQUIRED) OR WHETHER THE INCIDENT WAS SUBJECT TO A POLICY EXCLUSION (TIMELY DISCLAIMER REQUIRED) (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT OFFER PROOF OF WHEN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON WATER WAS LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
A STENT WAS DELIBERATELY INSERTED IN PLAINTIFF DURING SURGERY IN 1993 AND WAS DISCOVERED AND REMOVED IN 2012, ALTHOUGH THE STENT SHOULD HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN REMOVED, BECAUSE IT WAS INSERTED INTENTIONALLY AND SERVED A SURGICAL PURPOSE IT WAS NOT A ‘FOREIGN OBJECT,’ THEREFORE THE DISCOVERY OF THE STENT IN 2012 DID NOT START THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, COMPLAINT DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
THE REFEREE’S REPORT RELIED ON HEARSAY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER NOT LIABLE FOR INJURY CAUSED BY THE SPONTANEOUS ACT OF A BAR PATRON (SECOND DEPT).
TWO STATEMENTS FOUND TO BE NONACTIONABLE EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION IN THIS DEFAMATION ACTION, PLAINTIFFS HAVE NO PROOF BURDEN ON A MOTION TO DISMISS, DEFENDANTS NOT SHIELDED BY THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE 90-DAY TIME-LIMIT IN RPAPL 1371 FOR BRINGING A MOTION FOR A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE PURCHASER OF PROPERTY AT A FORECLOSURE SALE FUNCTIONS AS A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS; THE MOTION HERE WAS UNTIMELY (SECOND 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

Claimant’s Inculpatory Statement Demonstrated to Be Product of Police... No Showing Attorney Had Acquired Any Client Confidences Before Changing Fir...