Employment Law – Page 18 – New York Appellate Digest

Arbitration, Contract Law, Employment Law

TO BE ENFORCABLE, AN AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE MUST BE CLEAR, EXPLICIT AND UNEQUIVOCAL; HERE THE WORD “DISAGREEMENTS” IN THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE WAS TOO VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS TO REQUIRE PLAINTIFF TO ARBITRATE HER CLAIMS OF UNPAID COMMISSIONS AND WRONGFUL TERMINATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the arbitration clause in the employment agreement was ambiguous and vague. The clause could not be the basis for forcing plaintiff to arbitrate her claims that she was not paid commissions owed to her and was wrongfully terminated:

… “[A] party will not be compelled to arbitrate and, thereby, to surrender the right to resort to the courts, absent ‘evidence which affirmatively establishes that the parties expressly agreed to arbitrate their disputes'” … . “The agreement must be clear, explicit and unequivocal and must not depend upon implication or subtlety” … .

Here, the provision, “[t]hird party in case of a disagreement: Rabbi Shlomo Gross (Belze Dayan) or Rabbi Meir Labin,” does not expressly and unequivocally establish that the parties agreed to arbitrate the plaintiffs’ claims for unpaid commissions or wrongful termination … . Moreover, this provision ambiguously refers to a disagreement, but does not specify the types of disagreements to which it applies … . Rubinstein v C & A Mktg., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 03136, Second Dept 5-11-22

Practice Point: Plaintiff alleged the defendant employer did not pay her commissions she was owed and wrongfully terminated her. Although the employment contract called for the arbitration of “disagreements,” that term was not specific enough to serve as a basis for forcing plaintiff to arbitrate her unpaid-commission and wrongful-termination claims.

May 11, 2022

Civil Procedure, Employment Law, Labor Law

ACTION AGAINST AMAZON ALLEGING RETALIATION AGAINST WORKERS WHO PROTESTED COVID-RELATED WORKING CONDITIONS PREEMPTED BY NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT (NLRA) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined this action by the NYS Attorney General against Amazon alleging retaliation against workers for protesting COVID-related working conditions was preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA):

… [W]e find that the Labor Law §§ 215 and 740 claims alleging retaliation against workers based, in part, on their participation in protests against unsafe working conditions plainly relate to the workers’ participation in “concerted activities for the purpose of . . . mutual aid or protection,” i.e., activities that are protected by the NLRA … , and therefore that the claims are preempted … . Where conduct is clearly protected or prohibited by the NLRA, the NLRB, and not the states, should serve as the forum for disputes arising out of the conduct … . People v Amazon.com, 2022 NY Slip Op 03081, First Dept 5-10-22

Practice Point: Here a state action, brought by the NYS Attorney General, against Amazon alleging retaliation against workers for protesting COVID-related working conditions was deemed preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

May 10, 2022

Attorneys, Contract Law, Employment Law, Labor Law-Construction Law

PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HE WAS INDUCED TO SIGN RELEASES BY FRAUD, DURESS AND/OR MUTUAL MISTAKE; PLAINTIFF WAS APPROACHED BY HIS EMPLOYER’S LAWYER AND ALLEGEDLY BELIEVED HE WOULD LOSE HIS JOB IF HE DIDN’T SIGN (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff raised a question of fact about whether the releases were signed by plaintiff because of fraud, duress and/or mutual mistake. The facts are not described. Apparently plaintiff was injured at work and he alleged that he believed he would lose his job if he didn’t sign the releases:

“A release, even though properly executed, may nonetheless be void. Where fraud or duress in the procurement of a release is alleged, a motion to dismiss should be denied” … . Specifically, plaintiff alleged that Selina Maddock, a lawyer, was sent by their employer Navillus to secure plaintiff’s signature on the release, before he retained counsel, and made both the promise that he would have a job if he signed the releases, and the implicit threat that he would not have a job in the future if he failed to sign. He further alleged that Maddock advised plaintiff that he did not need to consult counsel and misrepresented to plaintiff that he was only releasing claims against his employer, Navillus. Consistent with this, plaintiff testified that he did not understand that he was releasing anyone besides his employer. Furthermore, “a mistaken belief as to the nonexistence of presently existing injury is a prerequisite to avoidance of a release”; here, while defendants argue that plaintiff is merely mistaken as to the sequelae of a known injury, plaintiff raises a factual issue as to whether the additional injuries he claims to suffer from were a sequelae of his right knee injury. Forcing a Hobbesian choice on injured workers to accept a small settlement or else lose their job before they can ascertain the nature and scope of their injury is contrary to the strong public policy of New York state to protect injured workers, as reflected in the Labor Law…. . Dolcimascolo v 701 7th Prop. Owner, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 02944, First Dept 5-3-22

Practice Point: Plaintiff was apparently injured at work. A lawyer for his employer approached him about signing releases. Plaintiff signed, allegedly because he believed he would lose his job if he didn’t. Therefore there was a question of fact about whether fraud, duress or mutual mistake invalidated the releases.

May 3, 2022

Administrative Law, Employment Law, Negligence

PLAINTIFF DANCER STATED CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT DANCER AND THEIR EMPLOYER, THE NEW YORK CITY BALLET (NYCB), IN CONNECTION WITH INTIMATE IMAGES ALLEGEDLY DISCLOSED BY THE DEFENDANT DANCER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Singh, over an extensive dissenting opinion, determined plaintiff, Waterbury, stated causes of action for: (1) violation of the NYC Administrative Code provision which prohibits the disclosure of intimate images without consent; (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (3) negligent hiring, supervision and retention. The plaintiff (Waterbury) was a dancer with the defendant New York City Ballet (NYCB). The defendant Finlay, who allegedly disclosed the images, was also a NYCB dancer. The negligent hiring cause of action is against NYCB as the defendant-dancer’s employer:

Waterbury’s allegations that images depict her engaged in sexual activity suffice (see Administrative Code § 10-180 [a] …). Construing the complaint liberally and according Waterbury “the benefit of every possible favorable inference” … , the allegations that Finlay shared images of her breasts are also sufficient (see Administrative Code § 10-180 [a] …). …

Waterbury also sufficiently alleges that Finlay intended to cause her economic, physical, or substantial emotional harm. “A result is intended if the act is done with the purpose of accomplishing such a result or with knowledge that to a substantial certainty such a result will ensue” … . …

Waterbury alleges that NYCB dancers and others affiliated with NYCB shared images and commentary regarding other women and that NYCB knew that Finlay and other dancers were degrading and exploiting young women. She asserts that NYCB implicitly encouraged this behavior. Waterbury states that NYCB knew of Finlay’s sexual conduct towards young women and took no steps to prevent such conduct. Waterbury v New York City Ballet, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 02890, First Dept 4-28-22

Practice Point: The NYC Administrative Code prohibits the disclosure of intimate images without consent. Here the complaint stated a cause of action based on an alleged violation of that code provision.

April 28, 2022

Employment Law

PETITIONER WAS CHARGED WITH MAKING A COMMENT TO A FELLOW EMPLOYEE AT A SOCIAL GATHERING, WAS FOUND GUILTY AND WAS TERMINATED; THE EMPLOYEE TESTIFIED THE REMARK WAS MADE AT THE WORKPLACE; THEREFORE PETITIONER WAS FOUND GUILTY OF CONDUCT THAT WAS NEVER CHARGED; DETERMINATION ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, annulling the determination terminating petitioner’s employment with the state, found that petitioner’s due process rights were violated because he was found guilty of conduct that was never charged. Petitioner was charged with making a comment to a fellow employee at a social gathering. But the employee testified the remark was made at the workplace:

Pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75 (1), a civil service employee “shall not be removed or otherwise subjected to any disciplinary penalty . . . except for incompetency or misconduct shown after a hearing upon stated charges.” “The standard of review of such a determination made after a disciplinary hearing is whether it is supported by substantial evidence” … . “The first fundamental of due process is notice of the charges made. This principle equally applies to an administrative proceeding for even in that forum no person may lose substantial rights because of wrongdoing shown by the evidence, but not charged” … Fundamentally, the determination made in a disciplinary proceeding “must be based on the charges made” and it is error to find a public employee guilty of uncharged specifications of misconduct and impose a penalty thereon … . Matter of Kiyonaga v New York State Justice Ctr. for the Protection of People with Special Needs, 2022 NY Slip Op 02850, Third Dept 4-28-22

Practice Point: Pursuant to the Civil Service Law, a state employee charged with official misconduct is entitled to due process, including notice of the charges. Here the petitioner was charged with making a comment to a fellow employee at a social gathering. The employee testified the remark was made in the workplace, conduct that was never charged. Petitioner was improperly found guilty of misconduct that was never charged and was terminated. The determination was annulled.

April 28, 2022

Employment Law

VAGUE, CONCLUSORY ALLEGATIONS WILL NOT SUPPORT A CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff did not state a cause of action for constructive discharge from his employment as a civil engineer for the City of New York:

The plaintiff was employed by the New York City Department of Transportation (hereinafter DOT) as an assistant civil engineer from 1997 until 2014, when he resigned. He commenced this action in 2017 alleging, inter alia, that he had been constructively discharged because he had reported other employees’ misconduct … . * * *

“An employee is constructively discharged when her or his employer, rather than discharging the plaintiff directly, deliberately created working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position would have felt compelled to resign” … . Here, affording the complaint a liberal construction, accepting the facts as alleged to be true, and according the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference … , the complaint fails to state a cause of action alleging constructive discharge, as the allegations are either vague and conclusory … , or pertain to events that occurred after the plaintiff resigned. Dhar v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 02779, Second Dept 4-27-22

Practice Point: Vague and conclusory allegations will not support a cause of action for constructive discharge, i.e., working conditions which are intolerable, “forcing” plaintiff to resign.

April 27, 2022

Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Education-School Law, Employment Law

THE SCHOOL PRINCIPAL HAD THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE A PROBABLE CAUSE DETERMINATION IN THIS DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING WHICH RESULTED IN THE TERMINATION OF A TENURED TEACHER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the NYC Department of Education’s (DOE’s) motion to dismiss the petition to vacate the arbitrator’s award should have been granted. The arbitrator determined the petitioner, a tenured teacher, was properly charged with incompetence, misconduct and neglect of duty and termination the teacher’s employment was appropriate. The teacher petitioner argued unsuccessfully that the initial probable cause determination must be made by the school board, not, as was the case here, the school principal:

… [T]he absence of a vote on probable cause by the “employing board” (Education Law § 3020-a[2]), did not deprive the hearing officer of the jurisdictional authority to hear and determine the underlying disciplinary charges. Rather, … the Chancellor was vested with the authority “[t]o exercise all of the duties and responsibilities of the employing board as set forth in [Education Law § 3020-a]” … , and with the authority to “delegate the exercise of all such duties and responsibilities” … . Matter of Cardinale v New York City Dept. of Educ., 2022 NY Slip Op 02791, Second Dept 4-27-22

Practice Point: In New York City, a school principal has the authority to determine whether there is probable cause to charge a tenured teacher with, for example, incompetence, misconduct and neglect of duty.

April 27, 2022

Civil Procedure, Employment Law, Human Rights Law

PLAINTIFF’S STATE AND CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; THE IDENTICAL CLAIMS UNDER FEDERAL LAW WERE DISMISSED IN FEDERAL COURT ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined plaintiff was collaterally estopped from asserting her NYC Human Rights Law causes of act after the dismissal of identical claims made under federal law in federal court. The First Department acknowledged the NYC Human Rights Law causes of action must be analyzed separately and independently from the federal and state human rights law causes of action, but held that collateral estoppel was proper under the facts:

In light of the particular express facts that the federal courts found were conclusively demonstrated by the record on the summary judgment motions before the district court; the nature of the allegations underlying plaintiff’s State and City Human Rights Law claims in this action and the manner in which plaintiff has litigated those claims; and the relevant collateral estoppel case law … , we conclude that, even affording the City Human Rights Law claims the liberal analysis to which they are entitled, plaintiff’s claims under both the State and City Human Rights Laws were properly dismissed under the doctrine of collateral estoppel … . …

In concluding that plaintiff failed to allege discriminatory intent, the motion court correctly held that collateral estoppel applied to facts identical to those necessarily found by the district court to be undisputed when it granted summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s federal employment discrimination claims .. …

… [I]n dismissing the discrimination and hostile work environment claims against NYU, the motion court correctly relied on the district court’s finding that defendants Joseph Thometz and Eve Meltzer (the individual defendants) were not supervisors or managers, and thus that [defendant] NYU, as plaintiff’s employer, was not strictly liable for their conduct … . …

… [T]he federal courts found that NYU provided a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for plaintiff’s termination: plaintiff breached a protective order issued by the district court by sending unsolicited emails to a potential witness in the federal action. Moreover, the federal courts found that plaintiff failed to present evidence that NYU’s reason was pretextual. … . Russell v New York Univ., 2022 NY Slip Op 02765, First Dept 4-26-22

Practice Point: Although NYC Human Rights Law violations must be analyzed separately and independently from federal and state law violations, here the dismissal of the federal claims in federal court required the dismissal of the state and city claims pursuant to the doctrine of collateral estoppel.

April 26, 2022

Appeals, Employment Law, Municipal Law, Negligence

PLAINTIFF SUED BOTH THE COUNTY AND THE SHERIFF FOR ALLEGED EXPOSURE TO CONTAMINATED WATER IN THE SHOWER AT THE JAIL; THE ACTION AGAINST THE COUNTY WAS NOT BROUGHT UNDER A VICARIOUS LIABILITY THEORY (THE COUNTY IS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE ACTS OR OMISSIONS OF THE SHERIFF); RATHER THE CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGED THE COUNTY WAS NEGLIGENT IN ITS OWN RIGHT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff, an inmate at the Orange County Correctional Facility (OCCF), stated a cause of action against the county, as well as the county sheriff. Plaintiff alleged he was exposed to contaminated shower water at the jail. The cause of action against the county was not based on a vicarious liability theory (the county is not vicariously liable for the acts or omissions of the sheriff’s office). Rather plaintiff stated a cause of action alleging the county was negligent in failing to ensure the safety of the water at the jail. That cause of action is distinct from the sheriff’s duty to keep inmates safe. The issue was properly raised for the first time on appeal:

… [T]he complaint did not solely seek to hold the County vicariously liable for the actions and omissions of the sheriff and his deputies. The complaint alleged that the County had a duty to maintain the OCCF, including its water supply, in a safe and proper manner, and that the County’s breach of that duty caused the plaintiff to sustain personal injuries. The County’s duty to provide and maintain the jail building is distinguishable from the sheriff’s duty to receive and safely keep inmates in the jail over which the sheriff has custody … . Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the plaintiff’s argument that the County is liable for its own negligence, as opposed to being vicariously liable for the negligence of the sheriff or his deputies, is not improperly raised for the first time on appeal. Aviles v County of Orange, 2022 NY Slip Op 02384, Second Dept 4-13-22

Practice Point: The county is not liable for the acts or omissions of the county sheriff under a vicarious liability theory. However, here the allegation that the shower water at the jail was contaminated stated a cause of action against the county for its own negligence. Therefore the action against the county should not have been dismissed.

April 13, 2022

Employment Law, Human Rights Law

PLAINTIFF STATED A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT CAUSE OF ACTION WITH THE ALLEGATION (AMONG OTHERS) THAT HIS ACCENT WAS MOCKED, BUT PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTATE HIS DEMOTION WAS RELATED TO SUCH ANIMUS; THERFORE THE DISCRIMINATION CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s employment discrimination claims under the NYS and NYC Human Rights Law stemming from his demotions should have been dismissed:

The discrimination claims should not have been allowed to proceed. Defendants proffered evidence supporting several legitimate reasons for demoting him from his provisional managerial position, including (1) an agency-wide restructuring, (2) plaintiff’s lack of accounting and management skills, and (3) evidence that he was a poor manager whose routinely hostile demeanor demoralized his subordinates, as evidenced by complaints made against him by several of those subordinates … In the face of this evidence, plaintiff failed to come forward with any evidence raising an issue of fact as to whether these reasons were mere pretext for discrimination (under the State HRL) or whether discrimination was one of the motivating factors for the demotion (under the City HRL) … . Plaintiff presented no evidence of any disparity between defendants’ treatment of him and defendants’ treatment of employees of other races or ethnicities under similar circumstances. While plaintiff’s allegations of remarks that could be interpreted as derogatory or indicative of animus suffice to support the hostile work environment claim … plaintiff fails to identify any evidence connecting such animus, if any, to the decision to demote him … . Kwong v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 02342, First Dept 4-7-22

Practice Point: Facts sufficient to state a cause of action for a hostile work environment do not necessarily state a cause of action for employment discrimination. A connection must be made between the hostile work environment claims (here allegations plaintiff’s accent was mocked) and the discrimination (here a demotion).

April 7, 2022