You are here: / / WHERE PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER IS A BUSINESS ENTITY, HERE BLOOMBERG L.P.,...
, ,

WHERE PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER IS A BUSINESS ENTITY, HERE BLOOMBERG L.P., AN OWNER OR OFFICER OF THE COMPANY, HERE MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, IS NOT AN EMPLOYER WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW; THE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION AGAINST MICHAEL BLOOMBERG WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over an extensive dissent, determined Michael Bloomberg, in his status as “owner” and officer of the company, Bloomberg L.P., is not an “employer” within the meaning of the NYC Human Rights Law, and therefore cannot be liable for harassment of the plaintiff (Doe) by her supervisor, Ferris. Bloomberg L.P. can be vicariously liable as the employer, but Michael Bloomberg cannot:

Plaintiff, an employee of Bloomberg L.P. using the pseudonym “Margaret Doe,” brought suit against defendants Bloomberg L.P., her supervisor Nicholas Ferris, and Michael Bloomberg, asserting several causes of action arising from alleged discrimination, sexual harassment, and sexual abuse. The question before us is whether Bloomberg, in addition to Bloomberg L.P., may be held vicariously liable as an employer under the New York City Human Rights Law (Administrative Code of City of NY, title 8 [City HRL]) based on his status as “owner” and officer of the company. We hold that Bloomberg is not an “employer” within the meaning of the City HRL and accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of plaintiff’s claims that seek to hold Bloomberg vicariously liable for Ferris’s offending conduct. * * *

The language in the City HRL … requires no external limiting principle exempting employees from individual suit as employers. … [W]here a plaintiff’s employer is a business entity, the shareholders, agents, limited partners, and employees of that entity are not employers within the meaning of the City HRL. … [T]hose individuals may incur liability only for their own discriminatory conduct, for aiding and abetting such conduct by others, or for retaliation against protected conduct (Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-107 [1], [6], [7]). This rule [is] consistent with the principles of vicarious and limited liability governing certain business structures (see e.g. Partnership Law §§ 26, 121-303; Limited Liability Company Law § 609; Business Corporation Law § 719). Doe v Bloomberg, L.P., 2021 NY Slip Op 00898, CtApp, 2-11-21

 

You might also like
Lump Sum Payments for Pending Workers’ Compensation Claims Made by Municipalities Choosing to Withdraw from a Workers’ Compensation Self-Insurance Fund Must Be Discounted to Present Value
Conviction Reversed on Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Grounds
EVIDENCE OF AN ALLEGED PRIOR IDENTICAL SEXUAL ASSAULT NOT ADMISSIBLE TO SHOW INTENT, MOTIVE, OR AS BACKGROUND EVIDENCE, CONVICTION REVERSED.
Assignment of Counsel Required Before Determining Whether Appeal Should Be Dismissed as Untimely
THE DNA EVIDENCE GENERATED BY THE TRUEALLELE CASEWORK SYSTEM WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE; THE DEFENSE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE TRUEALLELE SOFTWARE CODE EITHER IN CONNECTION WITH THE FRYE HEARING OR TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AGAINST DEFENDANT; THE CONCURRENCE STATED WHETHER THE CODE WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO THE DEFENSE UNDER A PROTECTIVE ORDER REMAINED AN OPEN QUESTION (CT APP).
Check Cashing Business Could Not Be Excluded by Zoning Measure
REVOCATION OF RACEHORSE TRAINER’S LICENSE BY THE NYS RACING AND WAGERING BOARD SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE STANDARD WAS MET (CT APP).
Slip and Fall On Ice While Wearing Stilts Not an Elevation-Related Event within Meaning of Labor Law 240 (1)

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

USING ANOTHER’S CREDIT CARD ACCOUNT NUMBER TO MAKE PURCHASES, WITHOUT... THE FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA THAT HIS SENTENCE WOULD...