You are here: / Employment Law
, ,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ALLEGATIONS DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE APPLICABLE NEW YORK STATE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW PROVISIONS, THE ALLEGATIONS DID STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE MORE PROTECTIVE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (CT APP).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the complaint stated a hostile work environment cause of action under the more protective New York City Human Rights Law, but not under the New York State Human Rights Law:

… [A]lthough the motion court properly concluded that it does not rise to the level of “severe and pervasive” under the applicable pre-2019 State HRL, plaintiff has raised triable issues of fact regarding the hostile work environment claims under the more protective City HRL … . There was evidence that in May and September 2015, several of plaintiff’s coworkers referred to him by using the Spanish word for “monkey,” a racially humiliating and degrading term. Further, the evidence suggested that other coworkers and supervisors, if not everyone at the restaurant, knew that certain employees were using that term to refer to plaintiff … . Under these circumstances, triable issues exist as to whether this rises above the level of a “truly insubstantial” case … . The evidence also raised triable issues as to whether plaintiff was treated differently from other employees of his ethnic background because of his skin color … .

… [T]riable issues of fact exist as to whether defendant was liable for the comments of its workers, and whether defendant took “immediate and appropriate corrective action” to prevent the conduct … . Pichardo v Carmine’s Broadway Feast Inc, 2021 NY Slip Op 06565, First Dept 11-23-21

 

, ,

THE PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEE AGREEMENT, WHICH PROVIDED FOR THE SHARING OF CONTINGENCY FEES FOR CASES RETAINED BY AN ATTORNEY WHO LEAVES THE FIRM, DID NOT VIOLATE ETHICS RULES AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN ENFORCED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the Professional Employee Agreement (Agreement), which provided for sharing contingency fees for cases retained by an attorney leaving the firm, did not violate ethics rules and should have been enforced:

… [T]he Agreement did not violate rule 1.5 (g) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) inasmuch as that rule “does not prohibit payment to a lawyer formerly associated in a law firm pursuant to a separation or retirement agreement” (Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 1.5 [h] … ) . Here, the Agreement at issue is not a fee-splitting agreement under Rule 1.5 (g) but, rather, an employment or separation agreement under Rule 1.5 (h). Such employment or separation agreements “should be construed, wherever possible, in favor of [their] legality” … and where, as here, they are clear and unambiguous on their face, they must be ” ‘enforced according to the plain meaning of [their] terms’ ” … .

… [T]he Agreement did not violate rule 5.6 (a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0 … ). Although the Agreement did have some financial disincentives for respondents to continue working on the cases that were transferred from petitioner, “agreements involving financial disincentives are not per se illegal”  … [W]e conclude that the terms of the Agreement relating to the division of contingency fee awards did not have the effect of “improperly deter[ring] competition” … . Matter of Mattar v Hall, 2021 NY Slip Op 06477, Fourth Dept 11-19-21

 

, ,

PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THEIR MINIMUM WAGE, OVERTIME PAY, SPREAD-OF-HOURS PAY AND WAGE THEFT PREVENTION ACT CAUSES OF ACTION, INCLUDING LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, PREJUDGMENT INTEREST AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion court should not have denied plaintiff’s summary judgment motion and, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint in this action alleging “violations of minimum wage, overtime pay and spread-of-hours pay under the Labor Law and violations of the Wage Theft Prevention Act (WTPA) …” . The First Department granted plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion, finding them entitled to liquidated damages, prejudgment interest and attorneys’ fees:

Plaintiffs established prima facie that defendants violated Labor Law §§ 190-199, 650, and 652 and 12 NYCRR 142 and 146-1.6 by failing to pay them minimum wage, overtime pay, and spread-of-hours pay. Although 12 NYCRR 142-2.2 requires an employer to pay an employee for overtime, i.e., working time over 40 hours, at a wage rate of 1½ times the employee’s regular rate, defendant Georgios Liristis, owner of defendant GE & LO Corp. d/b/a Burger Hut, testified that plaintiffs each worked 8- to 10-hour shifts, six days a week, and were paid a fixed salary. Although 12 NYCRR 142-2.4(a) requires that, for any day in which an employee’s spread of hours exceeds 10 hours, the employee receive one hour’s pay at the minimum wage rate in addition to the minimum wage, the record shows that plaintiff Galindo Tezoco, who regularly worked shifts over 10 hours, did not receive the additional hours’ pay.

Defendant Liristis’ testimony establishes that defendants failed to pay three of the five plaintiffs the prevailing minimum wage during the relevant periods. Defendants cannot avail themselves of the “tip credit,” since they undisputedly failed to provide notice of the tip credit in writing … .

Plaintiffs established that defendants violated the WTPA by failing to provide them with wage statements (see Labor Law § 195[3]) and by failing to provide wage notices to plaintiff Silverio Tezoco … . It is undisputed that defendants failed to provide any wage notices or wage statements during the course of plaintiffs’ employment. Tezoco v GE & LO Corp., 2021 NY Slip Op 06463, First Dept 11-18-21

 

,

PLAINTIFF, A LANDSCAPING CONTRACTOR, DID YARD WORK FOR DEFENDANT HOMEOWNER, INCLUDING SPREADING MULCH AND USING HIS OWN LADDER TO TRIM A TREE; PLAINTIFF POSITIONED THE LADDER ON THE MULCH; THE LADDER FELL OVER WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS STANDING ON IT; DEFENDANT HOMEOWNER DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (THE MULCH) AND DID NOT SUPERVISE OR DIRECT PLAINTIFF’S TREE-TRIMMING WORK; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant homeowner’s motion for summary judgment in this ladder-fall case should have been granted. Plaintiff alleged defendant asked him to trim some tree branches. Plaintiff placed his own ladder on mulch which he (plaintiff) had spread there as part of his landscaping work. Plaintiff alleged the mulch constituted a dangerous condition which caused the ladder to tip. Plaintiff also alleged the owner exercised supervision and control over his work and was liable for directing him to trim the tree:

Even assuming that defendant had a conversation with plaintiff, the request to trim the trees was a general instruction about what needed to be done without any direction about how to perform the task … . It is undisputed that defendant neither provided any equipment for the project nor directed the manner in which the ladder was placed or the trimming performed … . …

As to the dangerous condition theory of liability, … defendant did not create the hazard, as it is undisputed that plaintiff and his associates were the ones who spread the mulch and placed the ladder … . Nor is there any evidence that defendant had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition. Defendant was not shown to have expertise in landscaping and, even if he was inside the house when the ladder was being set up on the mulch, this general awareness would be insufficient to establish notice of an unsafe condition … . Vickers v Parcells, 2021 NY Slip Op 05762, Third Dept 10-21-21

 

, ,

SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF’S HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT CLAIMS; THE CONDUCT OCCURRED WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS NOT PHYSICALLY IN NEW YORK AND DID NOT HAVE ANY IMPACT ON THE TERMS, CONDITIONS OR EXTENT OF HER EMPLOYMENT WITHIN NEW YORK; THE FACTS WERE NOT DESCRIBED (FIRST DEPT).

​The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the hostile work environment claims under the Human Rights Law. The facts were not explained. The conduct occurred when plaintiff was “physically situated outside of New York” and did not have any impact on the “terms, conditions or extent of her employment” within New York:

Supreme Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the Human Rights Law claims … . Defendants’ alleged conduct occurred while plaintiff was “physically situated outside of New York” … , and did not have “any impact on the terms, conditions or extent of her employment . . . within the boundaries of New York” … . “The fact that the alleged discriminatory acts . . . occurred in New York is insufficient to plead impact in New York” … . Jarusauskaite v Almod Diamonds, Ltd., 2021 NY Slip Op 05460, First Dept 10-12-21

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE CORRECTION LAW BY ALLEGING HIS APPLICATION FOR REEMPLOYMENT AFTER COMPLETION OF HIS SENTENCE (60 DAYS INCARCERATION) WAS DENIED SOLELY BECAUSE OF HIS PRIOR CONVICTION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a concurring opinion, reversing the Appellate Division, determined plaintiff’s complaint stated a cause of action for discrimination under the Correction Law, which prohibits discrimination based upon criminal convictions in the context of applications for employment. Plaintiff had kept his employer informed of a criminal charge against him which had not yet gone to trial and was told he would not lose his job if he was sentenced to incarceration. Plaintiff was sentenced to 60 days and his employment was terminated:

The statutes do not categorically preclude consideration of a prospective employee’s criminal history and expressly permit the denial of employment or licensing if there is (1) a “direct relationship” between the previous criminal offense and the specific employment or license, or (2) if granting the request for employment or a license “would involve an unreasonable risk” to the property, safety, or welfare “of specific individuals or the general public” (Correction Law § 752). Thus, under the statutory scheme, reliance on a previous criminal offense when denying an application for employment or a license is not necessarily unlawful … . Whether an exception applies depends on factors identified in Correction Law § 753 such as, among other things, the relationship between the specific employment duties and the criminal offense as well as the amount of time that has elapsed since the offense occurred … . Under these provisions, when filling positions, public and private employers must treat job applicants with prior convictions equitably “while also protecting society’s interest in assuring performance [of job duties] by reliable and trustworthy persons” … . * * *

… [P]laintiff alleged that he was terminated for job abandonment soon after he was incarcerated. Applying our liberal standard, the complaint … may be read to allege that, after he completed his sentence, he applied for reemployment … and [defendant] denied the application solely because of the prior conviction. Sassi v Mobile Life Support Servs., Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 05449, CtApp 10-12-21

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANTS MAY HAVE BEEN NEGLIGENT IN HIRING THE DEFENDANT WHO SEXUALLY ASSAULTED THE SEVEN-YEAR-OLD PLAINTIFF, THERE WAS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYMENT AND THE PLAINTIFF OR THE OFFENSE, WHICH OCCURRED NEAR PLAINTIFF’S HOME; THEREFORE THE NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the negligent hiring and retention cause of action against the church defendants should have been dismissed. The complaint alleged plaintiff, who was seven years old, was abducted near her home, taken to a secluded area, and sexually assaulted by the defendant. The court noted that the church defendants may have been negligent in hiring the defendant, but there was no connection between the offense committed by the defendant and his employment:

With respect to a cause of action alleging negligent hiring and retention, “[t]he employer’s negligence lies in having placed the employee in a position to cause foreseeable harm, harm which would most probably have been spared the injured party had the employer taken reasonable care in making decisions respecting the hiring and retention of the employee” … . As such, a necessary element of a cause of action to recover damages for negligent hiring and retention is a nexus or connection between the defendant’s negligence in hiring and retaining the offending employee and the plaintiff’s injuries … . Here, the plaintiff failed to allege any such nexus, since the sexual assault occurred far from the Church’s premises, and there is no allegation in the complaint that the plaintiff had any prior contact with the alleged attacker, any prior relationship with any of the defendants, or even any knowledge, at the time of the sexual assault, that the alleged attacker was employed by the defendants. Roe v Domestic & Foreign Missionary Socy. of the Prot. Episcopal Church, 2021 NY Slip Op 05360, Second Dept 10-6-21

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT CAR DEALERSHIP OWNED THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF, ITS SALESMAN, WAS INJURED DURING A TEST DRIVE; THE DEALERSHIP, AS PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, IS IMMUNE FROM SUIT UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW AND IS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE AS THE OWNER OF THE CAR UNDER THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant Paddock Chevrolet was immune from suit by its employee in this traffic accident case. Plaintiff, a salesman for Paddock, was a passenger in a car owned by Paddock which was being test-driven at the time of the accident. The court noted that the Workers’ Compensation Law protected Paddock from vicarious liability as the owner of the car pursuant to the Vehicle and Traffic Law:

Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 provides that “[t]he liability of an employer prescribed by [section 10] shall be exclusive and in place of any other liability whatsoever, to such employee, . . . or any person otherwise entitled to recover damages, contribution or indemnity, at common law or otherwise, on account of such injury or death or liability arising therefrom . . .” We thus agree with Paddock that plaintiff’s claims against it are barred.

Paddock correctly contends that New York has rejected the “dual capacity” doctrine … , rendering it irrelevant whether the amended complaint and cross claims asserted against Paddock were based on its status as plaintiff’s employer or its status as the owner of the vehicle who is vicariously liable for the negligence of a nonemployee driver under Vehicle and Traffic Law … . Mansour v Paddock Chevrolet, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 05190, Fourth Dept 10-1-21

 

, ,

THE DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF MINORITY AND WOMEN’S BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ERRONEOUSLY IGNORED THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT THE HEARING BEFORE AN ADMINSTRATIVE LAW JUDGE WHICH DEMONSTRATED PETITIONER MET THE CRITERIA FOR A WOMEN-OWNED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (WBE) (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, annulling the determination of the Division of Minority and Women’s Business Development of the Department of Economic Development (the Division), found the petitioner had demonstrated it met the criteria for certification as a woman-owned business enterprise (WBE). In its contrary ruling, the Division erroneously ignored the evidence presented at the hearing before the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) which had ruled in favor of the petitioner:

Petitioner contends that the determination should be annulled because the Director refused to consider the testimonial evidence introduced at the administrative hearing in assessing the regulatory factors, and we agree. … [F]ollowing a determination denying an application for certification as a WBE, the applicant is, upon written request, entitled to an administrative hearing before an independent hearing officer … . The hearing officer must thereafter conduct the hearing based upon the information included in the request for a hearing as it relates to the information that was provided by the applicant with its certification application, and each party must be accorded a full opportunity to present evidence, including calling witnesses and cross-examining other parties and their witnesses … . The hearing officer may also “request additional information and take other actions necessary to make an informed decision” … , which ultimately must be based upon his or her “consideration of the record as a whole or such portion thereof as may be cited by any party to the proceeding and as supported by and in accordance with substantial evidence” … .

The proof adduced at the administrative hearing was highly relevant to the issue of whether petitioner met the criteria for WBE certification. Matter of Scherzi Sys., LLC v White, 2021 NY Slip Op 05143, Third Dept 9-30-21

 

, ,

THE 3RD DEPARTMENT ANNULLED THE DETERMINATION OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD (PERB) WHICH FOUND THAT THE FIREFIGHTERS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CITY FAILED TO NEGOTIATE BEFORE UNILATERALLY IMPOSING A SALARY REDUCTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), determined the city did not fulfill its obligation to negotiate a change in salary for its firefighters:

PERB acknowledged petitioners’ claims that the City made a unilateral determination to end the past practice of paying night differential, check-in pay and holiday pay in calculating regular wages and benefits to current employees should they receive General Municipal Law § 207-a (2) benefits in the future, but rejected those contentions upon the ground that petitioners had only documented the City’s intent to discontinue those payments with regard to retirees to whom it owed no duty to bargain. … The parties … orally stipulated at the hearing … that “those affected [by the City’s unilateral change in benefits] are those in the unit as of the alleged unilateral change,” necessarily referring to current employees who are members of the bargaining units rather than the retirees who are not … . The parties later reinforced that point by stipulating that the unilateral change was made “in a uniform[] fashion to all members of both bargaining units,” again using language necessarily referring to current employees to whom the City owes a duty to bargain. In the absence of any indication that counsel lacked authority to enter into those unambiguous factual stipulations or that some cause sufficient to invalidate a contract existed for setting the stipulations aside, they are binding  … . Thus, as the parties stipulated that the City’s unilateral actions impacted current employees in the bargaining units, PERB’s finding that the record was barren of proof on that point is not supported by substantial evidence, and it follows that PERB’s determination must be annulled … . Matter of Uniformed Fire Officers Assn. of the City of Yonkers v New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 2021 NY Slip Op 05144, Third Dept 9-30-21

 

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy