You are here: / Employment Law
, , , ,

DEFENDANTS DESTROYED SPEADSHEETS WHICH MAY HAVE DEMONSTRATED PLAINTIFF’S TERMINATION WAS NOT MOTIVATED BY THE NEED TO CUT COSTS; PLANTIFF IN THIS EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION WAS ENTITLED TO AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY CHARGE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendants in this employment discrimination action should have been sanctioned for spoliation of evidence. The defendants destroyed retail store spreadsheets which could have demonstrated plaintiff’s termination was not motivated by the need to cut costs. Plaintiff alleged he was terminated because he aided Egyptian employees who complained on national origin or religious discrimination. The First Department held plaintiff was entitled to an adverse inference jury charge:

… [T]he court erred in denying spoliation sanctions. Defendants breached their duty to preserve evidence by destroying retail store spreadsheets which were the only contemporaneous data on profits, payroll, and performance after litigation was reasonably anticipated … . Plaintiff’s October 2017 warning against tampering with accounting and payroll records triggered a preservation obligation that required defendants to suspend routine destruction policies … . Defendants cannot claim the records were deleted in the ordinary course of business, as a routine retention policy is no defense once the duty to preserve attaches … . Further, sanctions are warranted where a party’s negligence or intent deprives an opponent of the means of proving their claim … . Here, the destroyed spreadsheets are central to the issue of pretext. While defendants claim cost-based downsizing as the reason for termination, the destroyed data was the only evidence available to test whether the stores were actually underperforming or if plaintiff’s termination was retaliatory. Because this unique, irrecoverable evidence was within defendants’ exclusive control, its destruction is highly prejudicial. Accordingly, plaintiff should be granted an adverse inference charge at the time of trial. Pescales v Pax Ventures LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 02942, First Dept 5-12-26

Practice Point: Defendants in this employment discrimination action were sanctioned for destroying financial records which could have demonstrated plaintiff’s termination was not motivated by the need to cut costs.

 

, ,

THE INSTRUCTIONS CONCERNING THE USE OF CELL PHONES DURING A POLICE-DEPARTMENT PROMOTIONAL EXAM WERE AMBIGUOUS; THEREFORE THE DETERMINATION PETITIONERS VIOLATED THE INSTRUCTIONS WAS IRRATIONAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Higgitt, determined the New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS), acted irrationally when it found that petitioners-police-officers had violated the prohibition of the use of cell phones before dismissal from a promotional examination. The petitioners did not use their cell phones during the exam. Rather the cell phones were used after completion of the exam but before dismissal from the exam room. The First Department held that the instructions concerning the use of cell phones were ambiguous:

Here, rationality is lacking, not for a want of evidence, but because the standard to which DCAS held petitioners was ambiguous. The notices of violations issued by DCAS specified, among other things, that petitioners breached a test-taking rule providing that, “[b]efore, during and after your test, you are not permitted to use, have turned on or have out in the open: cellular phones.” The rule does not indicate when the cell-phone prohibition begins or when it ends….  Nothing in the rule, which DCAS quoted from the instruction sheet provided to the candidates, suggests the location or locations to which the cell phone prohibition applied. The ambiguity of the rule, coupled with the ambiguity as to when the test concluded (which the executive deputy commissioner acknowledged) and the prevalence of cell phones in the exam room, make the determinations irrational. Matter of Bifulco v City of New York, 2026 NY Slip Op 02772, First Dept 5-5-26

Practice Point: An administrative punishment for a purported rule violation will be deemed irrational if the rule is ambiguous.

 

, , , , ,

THE EDUCATION LAW PRIVILEGE WHICH PROTECTS HOSPITAL QUALITY-REVIEW PROCEEDINGS DID NOT APPLY TO REPORTS ABOUT UNSAFE WORKING CONDITIONS AT THE HOSPITAL; PLAINTIFF IN THIS WRONGFUL TERMINATION ACTION WAS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF THE REPORTS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this wrongful termination and retaliation action was entitled to discovery of so-called RL6 reports addressing unsafe working conditions. Defendant hospital claimed the documents were privileged under Education Law § 6527 (3) and the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005 (42 USC § 299b-21 et seq. [hereinafter PSQIA]):

Plaintiff was employed as a nursing assistant and technician within defendant’s secure unit for patients with behavioral health and psychiatric conditions. He commenced this action for wrongful termination and retaliation under Labor Law §§ 740 and 741, claiming that defendant unlawfully fired him after he reported unsafe workplace practices and conditions. During discovery, plaintiff demanded copies of his statements to defendant, including his June 2022 report of safety concerns submitted to defendant’s electronic reporting system. Plaintiff also requested the parties’ communications about the secure unit and defendant’s responses to prior related complaints or concerns. * * *

“[A] party does not obtain the protection of Education Law § 6527 (3) merely because the information sought could have been obtained during the course of a hospital review proceeding[.] . . . The exemption applies only where the information was in fact so obtained” … . In short, the administrator’s conclusory affidavit is insufficient to satisfy defendant’s burden under Education Law § 6527 (3) … . Moreover, defendant conceded, both in its brief and at oral argument, that the RL6 reports were not submitted to a quality assurance or peer review committee. …

Assuming, without deciding, the doubtful proposition that PSQIA applies to this state law claim, defendant failed to demonstrate that the RL6 reports at issue constitute privileged patient safety work product. Adams v Bassett Healthcare Network, 2026 NY Slip Op 02706, Third Dept 4-30-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the scope of the Education Law privilege protecting hospital quality-review proceedings. Here the privilege did not extend to employee reports about unsafe working conditions.

 

, , ,

THE “RECTAL INTRUSION” BY CORRECTION OFFICERS SEEKING TO FORCE CLAIMANT-INMATE TO COMPLY WITH THEIR ORDERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS AN ELEMENT OF DAMAGES IN THIS BATTERY ACTION AGAINST THE STATE; THE CONDUCT WAS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE CORRECTION OFFICERS’ EMPLOYMENT; THE STATE CAN BE HELD VICARIOUSLY LIABLE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Court of Claims, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mackey, determined the court should have considered the insertion of an object in claimant’s rectum as an element of damages in this suit by claimant-inmate against the State. The Court of Claims determined the State could not be vicariously liable because the conduct was outside the scope of the correction-officers’ employment. The Third Department disagreed, noting that the officers were attempting to force claimant to comply with their orders and the conduct was not motivated by sexual gratification:

There is no evidence that the rectal intrusion here was for any of the officers’ personal sexual gratification. Rather, the officers’ statements made during and immediately following the incident, as reported by claimant and credited by the Court of Claims, reflect that the sexually related conduct here was part of an overall — albeit objectively excessive — use of force to compel claimant’s compliance with a directive and, thus, was part of the officers’ employment-related function to enforce discipline within the correctional facility (see Correction Law § 137 [5]; 7 NYCRR 251-1.2 [d] …). … [T]he potential for such abuse of authority, if not the precise vile conduct engaged in here, is expressly addressed in the applicable instructions to correction officers in performing their employment-related disciplinary duties (see generally Correction Law § 137; 7 NYCRR 251-1.2). The record thus establishes defendant’s liability as to that part of the claim for damages related to the rectal intrusion … . Accordingly, we reverse the judgment to the extent that it excluded the same and remit for a new determination of claimant’s damages not inconsistent with this Court’s decision … . C.J. v State of New York, 2026 NY Slip Op 02699, Third Dept 4-30-26

Practice Point: Here the “rectal intrusion” inflicted by correction officers upon claimant-inmate was part of an attempt to force claimant to comply with their orders. Therefore the conduct was withing the scope of the officers’ employment for which the State can be vicariously liable.

 

, , ,

THE DREXEL UNIVERSITY COOPERATIVE EDUCATION PROGRAM (CO-OP) ARRANGES FOR STUDENTS TO WORK FOR PARTICIPATING EMPLOYERS FOR COLLEGE CREDIT; DREXEL DID NOT EXERCISE SUFFICIENT SUPERVISION OVER THE STUDENTS TO BE HELD VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR ANY WORKPLACE NEGLIGENCE ON THE STUDENTS’ PART (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant Drexel University was not the employer of two students who were operating a forklift which allegedly caused injury to plaintiff. The students were participating in a Drexel Cooperative Education Program. The Second Department found that Drexel was not exercising sufficient supervision and control over the students such that Drexel could be held vicariously liable for the forklift accident:

… [T]he Drexel Cooperative Education Program [the co-op] … permits students to apply for and obtain paid work experience with participating employers for a period of up to six months. * * *

Drexel demonstrated, prima facie, that it lacked the requisite control over the students’ work and conduct during their employment with Jaidan [a participating co-op employer] to give rise to either an employer-employee or principal-agent relationship. Drexel’s evidence demonstrated that it provided an online recruiting platform on which students searched job descriptions submitted by participating employers and applied for jobs with those employers. Drexel also required that students work 32 hours per week to receive academic credit for the co-op, that students follow Drexel’s code of conduct during the co-op, and that students complete a survey at the end of the co-op to report on their experience. However, the co-op employers decided whether to hire a particular student, paid the co-op students’ salaries, and provided IRS documents. Additionally, employers set the students’ work schedule and were responsible for supervising and training the students. While participating employers were encouraged to communicate with Drexel if there were performance issues so that Drexel could provide support, the participating employer had the authority to terminate the students’ employment. During the time that the students worked at their co-op location, they would have little to no contact with Drexel, which, in the case of the students at issue here, was located approximately 130 miles from where the students were living and working for [the co-op employer]. Sager v Frontpage Invs., 2026 NY Slip Op 02686, Second Dept 4-29-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the level of supervision required for an employer-employee or principal-agent relationship which will trigger vicarious liability.

 

, ,

THE FACT THAT THE EMPLOYER MAY BE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR AN EMPLOYEE’S NEGLIGENCE DOES NOT WARRANT DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION AGAINST THE EMPLOYEE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined an employee defendant should not have been granted summary judgment on the ground her employer (New Beginnings) was vicariously liable for the employee’s negligence. Allegedly, plaintiff was injured receiving a “facial treatment” from the employee (Wallace):

… [T]he doctrine of respondeat superior does not entitle Wallace to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her. “While an employer may be vicariously liable for the torts of its employee while acting within the scope of his or her employment, a claim against the employer does not necessarily preclude a separate claim against the employee” … . “It is ordinarily immaterial to an agent’s liability that the agent’s tortious conduct may, additionally, subject the principal to liability” (Restatement [Third] of Agency § 7.01[b]). “It is consistent with encouraging responsible conduct by individuals to impose individual liability on an agent for the agent’s torts although the agent’s conduct may also subject the principal to liability” … . Castellazzo v David’s New Beginnings, LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 02625, Second Dept 4-29-26

Practice Point: The fact that an employer may be vicariously liable for an employee’s negligence does not preclude a suit against both.

 

, , , ,

PLAINTIFF, AN EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIAN (EMT), AFTER A COMPLAINT MADE BY A PATIENT TO THE DEFENDANT DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, WAS SERVED WITH A NOTICE OF HEARING AND A STATEMENT OF CHARGES INDICATING HIS EMT LICENSE COULD BE REVOKED; PLAINTIFF SOUGHT A DECLARATION HE WAS ENTITLED TO A JURY TRIAL PURSUANT TO THE US AND NY CONSTITUTIONS; SUPREME COURT AGREED BUT THE THIRD DEPARTMENT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mcshan, rejected plaintiff’s argument that he was entitled to a jury trial pursuant to the Seventh Amendment of the US Constitution, or, alternatively pursuant to Article I, section 2 of the NY Constitution. Plaintiff is an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) who responded to a call that a man (the patient) had fallen and could not get up. According to a witness, plaintiff thought the patient was faking, ridiculed him and offered only minimal assistance. The patient submitted a complaint to the defendant (the Department of Health). The defendant served plaintiff with a notice of hearing and statement of charges indicating plaintiff may be subject fines and revocation of the EMT license. Plaintiff then sued defendant seeking a declaration that he was entitled to a jury trial:

The Seventh Amendment to the US Constitution preserves the right of trial by jury in suits at common law where the value of the controversy exceeds $20 (see US Const, 7th Amend). Longstanding precedent from the Supreme Court of the United States holds that the Seventh Amendment “applies only to proceedings in courts of the United States, and does not in any manner whatever govern or regulate trials by jury in state courts, or the standards which must be applied concerning the same” … . * * *

The NY Constitution provides that “[t]rial by jury in all cases in which it has heretofore been guaranteed by constitutional provision shall remain inviolate forever” (NY Const, art I, § 2). * * *

… [P]laintiff asserts that defendant, in essence, seeks to punish him for tortious conduct through the imposition of a civil penalty, which traditionally entailed a jury trial … . What plaintiff fails to directly confront, however, is that the nature of this proceeding is predicated on a violation of the statutory scheme that regulates plaintiff’s professional license and that the remedies sought are tethered thereto. … Specifically, Public Health Law article 30 places the responsibility on defendant to regulate the provision of emergency medical services in the state (see Public Health Law §§ 3000-3034) and, in furtherance of that responsibility, defendant has promulgated regulations governing the training, examination and licensing of EMTs … .Ball v New York State Dept. of Health, 2026 NY Slip Op 02494, Third Dept 4-23-26

Practice Point: Plaintiff, an EMT, after a complaint from a patient, was facing a Department of Health hearing at which his EMT license could be revoked. Plaintiff unsuccessfully sought a declaration that he was entitled to a jury trial pursuant to the Seventh Amendment of the US Constitution and Article I, section 2 of the NY Constitution.

 

, ,

THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS TERMINATED FROM HIS EMPLOYMENT BASED ON “FAMILIAL STATUS” AND “CAREGIVER” DISCRIMINATION PURSUANT TO THE NYS AND NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the causes of action for “familial status” and “caregiver” discrimination under the Human Rights Law should not have been dismissed in this wrongful termination action:

… [T]he record presents issues of fact as to plaintiff’s familial and caregiver status causes of action under the State HRL [Human Rights Law], which prohibits discrimination based on “familial status,” including against “any person who . . . has a child or is in the process of securing legal custody” of a child (Executive Law §§ 292[26][a], 296[1][a]), and the City HRL, which prohibits discrimination based on “caregiver status” (Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-107[1][a]). On July 11, 2016, the day before DSC’s [defendant’s] decision to put plaintiff on probation, plaintiff attended a hearing in a custody proceeding regarding his daughter. According to plaintiff, Richard Greenberg, DSC’s co-chief investment officer, questioned whether plaintiff “was sure [he wanted] to do this” (that is, to participate in custody proceedings) and encouraged him to “[g]ive up on [his] daughter.” In addition, at plaintiff’s year-end review meeting, which plaintiff recorded, Greenberg gave him negative feedback about his job performance and stated, “I just want to know . . . is your heart still in it, you know? . . . I mean you’ve got all these things going on.”

Additionally, in January 2017, Jane Park, the firm’s director of business development and client relations, authored a memo for Smith and Greenberg that discussed whether to disclose to firm clients that a more junior investment analyst had received firm equity while plaintiff had not. The memo posited telling clients, as one option, that plaintiff “is going through some personal issues which make[] the current timing less than ideal for ownership disbursement.” Park testified at her deposition that she was referring to the fact that plaintiff was “distracted” because of his divorce and custody fight. …

Taken together, the evidence could lead a reasonable factfinder to conclude that defendants’ proffered reasons for denying plaintiff equity and ultimately terminating him were “false, misleading, or incomplete,” and that plaintiff was, in fact, terminated on the basis of his familial or caregiver status … . Mezinev v Donald Smith & Co., 2026 NY Slip Op 02209, First Dept 4-14-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into what constitutes “familial status” and “caregiver” discrimination in the context of an alleged wrongful termination of employment pursuant to the NYS and NYC Human Rights Law.

 

, ,

EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CASES ARE REVIEWED UNDER “NOTICE PLEADING” STANDARDS WHERE ONLY FAIR NOTICE OF THE NATURE OF THE CLAIM AND ITS GROUNDS ARE REQUIRED; HERE PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATION THAT A SUPERVISOR STATED SHE RECEIVED HIGH EVALUATIONS BECAUSE SHE ENGAGED IN SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH HER SUPERIORS WAS SUFFICIENT TO SURVIVE DISMISSAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that a single remark by a supervisor may sustain an employment discrimination or hostile work environment claim. The court noted the more lenient pleading requirement for employment discrimination actions:

… [E]mployment discrimination cases are generally reviewed under notice pleading standards … . Indeed, a “plaintiff alleging employment discrimination need not plead specific facts establishing a prima facie case of discrimination but need only give fair notice of the nature of the claim and its grounds” … . In an action brought under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), “[f]air notice is all that is required to survive at the pleading stage” … . * * *

Although a “single, isolated comment” or “stray remark” will not always suffice to sustain a discrimination or hostile work environment claim … , “a single comment that objectifies women being made in circumstances where that comment would, for example, signal views about the role of women in the workplace” could be actionable … . Here, where plaintiff alleged that her supervisor implied that she only received high evaluation scores because she was engaging in sexual relations with higher-ups, the alleged remarks and attendant hostile conduct were more than “petty slights and trivial inconveniences” … . Cummings v City of New York, 2026 NY Slip Op 00972, First Dept 2-19-26

Practice Point: Pleading standards are more lenient in employment discrimination cases. Fair notice of the nature of the claim and its grounds are sufficient to survive dismissal.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WORKING UNDER GTLF’S SUPERVISION; GTLF HAD HIRED ATRIUM, PLAINTIFF’S GENERAL EMPLOYER, TO HANDLE CERTAIN ASPECTS OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT, INCLUDING PAYROLL AND WORKERS’ COMPENSATION INSURANCE; PLAINTIFF RECEIVED WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS FROM ATRIUM FOR A WORK-RELATED INJURY; GTLF, AS PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL EMPLOYER, CANNOT BE SUED IN NEGLIGENCE BY PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined GTLF was plaintiff’s special employer and Atrium was plaintiff’s general employer. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined plaintiff was entitled to Workers’ Compensation benefits from Atrium, his general employer, for a work-related injury. Therefore, plaintiff could not sue GTLF, his special employer, in negligence based upon that work-related injury. GTLF was entitled to summary judgment:

For purposes of the Workers’ Compensation Law, a person may be deemed to have more than one employer—a general employer and a special employer … . “The receipt of Workers’ Compensation benefits from a general employer precludes an employee from commencing a negligence action against a special employer” … .

“In determining whether a special employment relationship exists, ‘who controls and directs the manner, details and ultimate result of the employee’s work’ is a ‘significant and weighty feature,’ but is not determinative of the issue” … . Indeed, “[m]any factors are to be considered when deciding whether such a special employment relationship exists and not one factor is decisive” … . Other principal factors to be considered include “who is responsible for the payment of wages and the furnishing of equipment, who has the right to discharge the employee, and whether the work being performed was in furtherance of the special employer’s or the general employer’s business” … . General employment will be presumed to continue unless there is a “clear demonstration of surrender of control by the general employer and assumption of control by the special employer” … .

Here, in addition to a transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony and a copy of the agreement between GTLF and Atrium, GTLF submitted an affidavit of its CEO, who averred, among other things, that after GTLF retained Atrium for “certain aspects of [the] plaintiff’s employment, including payroll and Workers’ Compensation insurance . . . [GTLF] maintained the same supervision and control of the plaintiff regarding his duties as a” brand ambassador. Based upon this evidence, GTLF established, prima facie, that GTLF was the plaintiff’s special employer … . Samuel v Petainer, 2026 NY Slip Op 00925, Second Dept 2-18-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into how to determine whether an employer is a general employer or a special employer for purposes of Worders’ Compensation benefits. If a worker receives Workers’ Compensation benefits from the worker’s general employer for a work-related injury, the employee cannot sue the special employer in negligence for that same injury.

 

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