You are here: / / COMPLAINANT’S ACTUAL EMPLOYER WAS ADDED TO THE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION...
, , ,

COMPLAINANT’S ACTUAL EMPLOYER WAS ADDED TO THE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING MORE THAN ONE YEAR AFTER TERMINATION, THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY, DISCRIMINATION FINDING ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, annulling the employment discrimination determination, held that the action against the employer, Food Corp., was untimely and the relation-back doctrine did not apply. Complainant had originally named Trade Fair as her employer and then added Food Corp. more than a year after her termination:

Food Corp. does not dispute that the first prong of the relation-back test was satisfied, because the claims against Food Corp. arose out of the same transactions or occurrences as those asserted against Trade Fair. The complainant also established the third prong of the test by presenting evidence suggesting that Food Corp. had notice of the proceeding before the statute of limitations expired, and that Food Corp. should have known that, but for the complainant’s mistake in omitting it as a respondent in her complaint, the proceeding would have been timely commenced against it as well.

However, the complainant failed to satisfy the second prong of the relation-back test, because Food Corp. and Trade Fair were not united in interest. Respondents are “united in interest only when their interest in the subject-matter [of the proceeding] is such that [the respondents] stand or fall together and that judgment against one will similarly affect the other'” … . “[T]he question of unity of interest is to be determined from an examination of (1) the jural relationship of the parties whose interests are said to be united and (2) the nature of the claim asserted against them by the [complainant]” … . Respondents are not united in interest if there is a possibility that the new party could have a defense different from that of the original party … . Here, the Commissioner dismissed the second amended complaint insofar as asserted against Trade Fair on the grounds that the complainant never interacted with or took direction from Trade Fair’s employees, and that Trade Fair was not the complainant’s employer. In contrast, the Commissioner determined that Food Corp. was the complainant’s employer because Food Corp.’s personnel hired and fired the complainant and controlled the complainant’s daily workplace activities. Thus, the record makes clear that Food Corp.’s and Trade Fair’s interests in the administrative proceeding did not stand or fall together … . Matter of 130-10 Food Corp. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 2018 NY Slip Op 08123, Second Dept 11-28-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, COMPLAINANT’S ACTUAL EMPLOYER WAS ADDED TO THE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING MORE THAN ONE YEAR AFTER TERMINATION, THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY, DISCRIMINATION FINDING ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW  (EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, COMPLAINANT’S ACTUAL EMPLOYER WAS ADDED TO THE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING MORE THAN ONE YEAR AFTER TERMINATION, THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY, DISCRIMINATION FINDING ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT))/HUMAN RIGHTS LAW  (EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, COMPLAINANT’S ACTUAL EMPLOYER WAS ADDED TO THE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING MORE THAN ONE YEAR AFTER TERMINATION, THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY, DISCRIMINATION FINDING ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW  (EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, COMPLAINANT’S ACTUAL EMPLOYER WAS ADDED TO THE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING MORE THAN ONE YEAR AFTER TERMINATION, THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY, DISCRIMINATION FINDING ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT))/DISCRIMINATION  (EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, COMPLAINANT’S ACTUAL EMPLOYER WAS ADDED TO THE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING MORE THAN ONE YEAR AFTER TERMINATION, THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY, DISCRIMINATION FINDING ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT))/RELATION BACK DOCTRINE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, COMPLAINANT’S ACTUAL EMPLOYER WAS ADDED TO THE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING MORE THAN ONE YEAR AFTER TERMINATION, THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY, DISCRIMINATION FINDING ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (RELATION BACK DOCTRINE, EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, COMPLAINANT’S ACTUAL EMPLOYER WAS ADDED TO THE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING MORE THAN ONE YEAR AFTER TERMINATION, THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY, DISCRIMINATION FINDING ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF LOST HER LABOR LAW 740 WRONGFUL TERMINATION TRIAL, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE AWARDED ATTORNEY’S FEES TO DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM WAS NOT BASELESS (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SENT THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE TO BOTH BORROWERS IN THE SAME ENVELOPE, A VIOLATION OF THE “SEPARATE ENVELOPE” RULE (SECOND DEPT).
Handwriting Expert Not Necessary to Create Question of Fact About Authenticity of Signature
WHETHER A DELAY IN DIAGNOSIS AFFECTED PLAINTIFF’S PROGNOSIS IS USUALLY A JURY QUESTION; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE CRITERIA FOR THE HARSH REMEDY OF ATTACHMENT WERE NOT MET (SECOND DEPT).
THE COMPLAINT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE STATED CAUSES OF ACTION (1) FOR FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT TO SIGN A RELEASE AND (2) FOR RESCISSION OF THE RELEASE BASED UPON UNILATERAL MISTAKE (SECOND DEPT).
FATHER’S PETITION FOR A MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY OR INCREASED PARENTAL ACCESS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT AN IN CAMERA INTERVIEW OF THE CHILD (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

THE ACTUAL DIMENSIONS OF THE COOPERATIVE APARTMENT WERE SMALLER THAN THE DIMENSIONS... FATHER WAS NEVER PROPERLY INFORMED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS MAINTENANCE...