You are here: / Employment Law
, , , , ,

THE SEVEN-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN NYC’S VICTIMS OF GENDER-MOTIVATED VIOLENCE PROTECTION LAW (VGM) IS NOT PREEMPTED BY THE ONE-YEAR OR THREE-YEAR CPLR STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS; ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT AND DEFENDANT S CORPORATION MAY BE ONE AND THE SAME, THERE WAS ENOUGH EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT FOR THE NEGLIGENT HIRING AND SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION TO SURVIVE THE MOTION TO DISMISS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, reversing Supreme Court, determined the seven-year statute of limitations in NYC’s Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Law (VGM) was not preempted by the one-year statute of limitations for assault in the CPLR and the negligent hiring and supervision cause of action should have survived the motion to dismiss even though the S corporation (PDR) and the defendant (Rofe) may be one and the same. The complaint alleged plaintiffs were subjected to unwanted sexual touching by defendant Rofe during voice-over coaching sessions offered by defendant S corporation (PDR):

… [W]e find that the legislative intent of the VGM was to create a civil rights remedy or cause of action such as in VAWA, rather than to extend the statute of limitations for a particular class of assaults. Since the nature of the claim is for a civil rights violation (providing a remedy for those subjected to violence because of their gender), the seven-year limitations period provided in the Administrative Code is not preempted by the CPLR statute of limitations for assault claims. * * *

To be sure, defendants may be correct that PDR essentially has no corporate structure separate from Rofe. Plaintiffs themselves do not appear to distinguish between Rofe and PDR in their brief. Nevertheless, plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that Rofe was an employee of PDR and, through the submission of additional evidence in opposition to the motion to dismiss, have also sufficiently alleged that there may have been other employees of PDR who either hired, or supervised Rofe or whom Rofe hired or supervised. The acts of a corporation’s agent and the knowledge acquired by the agent are presumptively imputed to the corporation … . Thus, Rofe’s knowledge (as an alleged agent of PDR) that an employee was potentially violent or prone to sexual assaults would normally be imputed to PDR, potentially requiring PDR to supervise that employee, and the cause of action for negligent hiring and supervision should be reinstated as against PDR … . Engelman v Rofe, 2021 NY Slip Op 01321, First Dept 3-2-21

 

, ,

THE FINDINGS LEADING TO THE TERMINATION OF PETITIONER WERE CONCLUSORY AND DID NOT ALLOW MEANINGFUL REVIEW; PETITIONER’S SUPERVISOR, WHO BROUGHT THE MISCONDUCT CHARGES, CHOSE THE HEARING OFFICER AND TESTIFIED AT THE HEARING, SHOULD RECUSE HERSELF FROM FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON REMITTAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, annulling the termination petitioner’s employment with the county, determined the findings were conclusory and therefore did not allow meaningful review. In addition, the Third Department held that petitioner’s supervisor, KIssane, who brought the misconduct charges, chose the hearing officer and testified at the hearing, should be disqualified from the proceedings on remittal:

“Administrative findings of fact must be made in such a manner that the parties may be assured that the decision is based on the evidence in the record, uninfluenced by extralegal considerations, so as to permit intelligent challenge by an aggrieved party and adequate judicial review” … . The Hearing Officer made, at most, conclusory statements that petitioner was guilty of the relevant charges. More to the point, he failed to support these conclusions with any factual evidence adduced at the hearing … .. In the absence of specific factual findings, meaningful judicial review cannot be conducted. Accordingly, the determination must be annulled and the matter remitted for the development of appropriate findings … . * * *

“Although involvement in the disciplinary process does not automatically require recusal, . . . individuals who are personally or extensively involved in the disciplinary process should disqualify themselves from reviewing the recommendations of a Hearing Officer and from acting on the charges” … . Matter of Morgan v Warren County, 2021 NY Slip Op 01107, Third Dept 2-18-21

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF NYC SANITATION WORKER STEPPED ON A LIVE POWER LINE AFTER HIS SUPERVISOR ALLEGEDLY TOLD HIM THE POWER WAS OFF; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS A SPECIAL DUTY OWED BY THE CITY DEFENDANTS TO THE PLAINTIFF; CITY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the NYC and NYC Department of Sanitation’s motions for summary judgment in this electrocution case should not have been granted. Plaintiff, a NYC sanitation department employee was doing clean up after Hurricane Sandy when he stepped on a live power line. Plaintiff alleged he was told by his supervisor the power had been turned off. The court applied the usual analysis for municipal liability for negligence: (1) the city was engaged in a governmental function; (2) there may have been a special relationship between the city defendants and the plaintiff; (3) it does not appear that a discretionary act was involved such that governmental immunity would apply:

… [T]he City defendants met their prima facie burden of establishing that they were engaged in a governmental function at the time that the causes of action arose … . However, the City defendants failed to establish, prima facie, the absence of a special duty to the plaintiff.

In this case, the plaintiff had an employer-employee relationship with the New York City Department of Sanitation. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot be equated with a member of the general public. It appears from this record that there exists a triable issue of fact as to whether the City defendants voluntarily assumed a duty to the plaintiff beyond what was owed to the public generally that generated the plaintiff’s justifiable reliance … .

This Court has applied the doctrine of governmental immunity to an employee of the New York City Department of Sanitation, but in that case, the issue was whether the City of New York engaged in discretionary governmental actions based upon reasoned judgment in selecting equipment … . On this record, it does not appear that this case involves discretionary determinations … . Lewery v City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 01035, Second Dept 2-17-21

 

, ,

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

 

, , , ,

HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CLAIMS DID NOT ALLEGE DISCRIMINATION; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS DOES NOT APPLY TO TERMINATION OF AT WILL EMPLOYMENT; WORKERS’ COMPENSATION IS THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR NEGLIGENCE ACTIONS AGAINST AN EMPLOYER; PUNITIVE DAMAGES NOT AVAILABLE FOR THE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION OR BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that several of plaintiff’s causes of action, as well as claims for punitive damages, should have been dismissed. Plaintiff’s lawsuit stemmed from alleged wrongful conduct in terminating the plaintiff’s employment and evicting him from a work-provided apartment:

… [P]laintiff alleges that he engaged in “protected activity” when his attorney sent a letter to one or more defendants about an altercation between plaintiff and a neighbor. We agree with defendants that … sending the letter did not constitute “protected activity” because the letter did not suggest, much less allege, that anyone had engaged in “unlawful discrimination,” i.e., conduct prohibited by the [Human Rights Law]. …

… [I]t is well established that “[t]ort causes of action alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress . . . ‘cannot be allowed in circumvention of the unavailability of a tort claim for wrongful discharge or the contract rule against liability for discharge of an at-will employee’ ” … . …

With respect to the fifth and eighth causes of action (negligent infliction of emotional distress and negligent hiring, training, and supervision, respectively), it is well established that workers’ compensation benefits are the “exclusive remedy for . . . injuries allegedly caused by the negligence of [a person’s] employer and fellow employee” … . …

Punitive damages are not available for the employment discrimination claims in the complaint … . … [T]he breach of contract claim … does not qualify for punitive damages because plaintiff does not allege that [the] alleged breach of contract was ” ‘aimed at the public generally’ ” … . Miller v National Prop. Mgt. Assoc., Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 00729, Fourth Dept 2-5-21

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A POLICE OFFICER SUFFERING FROM BIPOLAR DISORDER, COMMITTED SUICIDE; THE ESTATE BROUGHT A WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION AGAINST THE CITY; ALTHOUGH THE FACTS SUPPORTED AN EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CLAIM, THE COMPLAINT DID NOT ALLEGE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION; THE COMPLAINT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta. determined plaintiff’s decedent (Benitez), a police officer who committed suicide, was disabled by bipolar disorder and was entitled to accommodation under the state and city Human Rights Law. However, because the estate brought a wrongful death action, and did not allege Human Rights Law discrimination causes of action, the complaint was properly dismissed:

… [P]laintiff conceded that this case “ha[d] been primarily brought on a claim of negligence,” that it had not interposed separate statutory causes of action, and that “this [wa]s a negligence c[ase], not a c[ase] based on discriminatory practices.” …

Inasmuch as plaintiff did not raise any Human Rights Law violations for failure to accommodate, we are constrained to affirm … . Supreme Court correctly concluded that defendants did not owe Benitez a duty to prevent him from committing suicide. A defendant owes such a duty where it is either “a facility such as a hospital or jail which is in actual physical custody of an individual” or “an institution or mental health professional with sufficient expertise to detect suicidal tendencies and with the control necessary to care for the person’s well-being” … . Here, defendants had neither “actual physical custody” of the decedent nor “the control necessary to care for [his] well-being” before his suicide … . Furthermore, a defendant only breaches its duty to prevent a decedent’s suicide when it “fails to take reasonable steps to prevent a reasonably foreseeable suicide … ,” and there is no evidence in this case that the decedent’s suicide was “reasonably foreseeable” … .

On appeal, plaintiff argues that the NYPD failed to accommodate Benitez under, among other statutes, the City Human Rights Law (City HRL). However, plaintiff improperly raises elements of disability discrimination in the context of a wrongful death action. Benitez v City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 00617, First Dept 2-4-21

 

, , ,

UNDER THE TERMS OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT PLAINTIFF MUST ARBITRATE HIS RACIAL DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS; AFTER THE UNION REFUSED TO ARBITRATE THE CLAIMS PLAINTIFF BROUGHT THE INSTANT HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION; THE COMPLAINT WAS STAYED PENDING ARBITRATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a comprehensive opinion by Justice Christopher, determined plaintiff’s racial discrimination claims were subject to mandatory arbitration under the controlling collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The union had declined to pursue the arbitration of the discrimination claims and plaintiff then commenced the instant action pursuant to the NYS and NYC Human Rights Law. The opinion is to detailed to fairly summarize here. The plaintiff’s complaint was stayed pending arbitration:

“[A]rbitration must be preferred unless it may be said with positive assurance that the arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute” … . An agreement to arbitrate must be “clear, explicit and unequivocal” … . “Arbitration is a matter of contract, and arbitration clauses, which are subject to ordinary principles of contract interpretation, must be enforced according to their terms” … . * * *

… [I]n order for the plaintiff to be required to arbitrate his employment discrimination claims, the CBA must “clearly and unmistakably” waive the plaintiff’s right to proceed in a judicial forum … . Here, the mandatory arbitration clause “clearly and unmistakably” waives the plaintiff’s right to proceed in a judicial forum. It explicitly references the employment discrimination statutes that the plaintiff has alleged were violated, and states that “[a]ll such claims shall be subject to the grievance and arbitration procedure . . . as the sole and exclusive remedy for violations.” * * *

The Supreme Court’s determination to grant that branch of the defendants’ motion which was, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint was improper. “An agreement to arbitrate is not a defense to an action,” and “[t]hus, it may not be the basis for a motion to dismiss” … . However, upon granting that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to compel arbitration pursuant to CPLR 7503(a), the court should have stayed the action …, the order granting a motion to compel “shall operate to stay a pending . . . action.” Wilson v PBM, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 00593, Second Dept 2-3-21

 

,

PLAINTIFF, A PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEE, WAS TERMINATED FOR MARIJUANA USE; QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER AN ACCOMMODATION FOR PLAINTIFF AS A MEDICAL MARIJUANA PATIENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined there are questions of fact about whether plaintiff probationary employee was entitled to accommodation under the Human Rights Law (HRL). She was terminated for marijuana use. However, the marijuana use was a treatment for an illness, irritable bowel disease (IBD):

… [T]here are issues of fact, for purposes of plaintiff’s claim for failure to accommodate under the State Human Rights Law (HRL), as to whether defendant adequately engaged in a cooperative dialogue with plaintiff …. to determine whether it could reasonably accommodate her status as a medical marijuana patient (see PHL 3369[2]). Notably, questions of fact exist as to whether defendant improperly cut the dialogue process short when it discovered that plaintiff was a probationary employee, and refused to consider accommodating her — as it regularly did for permanent employees — by, for example, giving her discipline short of termination, or simply overlooking the one-time technical violation in light of her contemporaneously acquired status as a medical marijuana patient … . …

The State HRL defines status as a medical marijuana patient as a protected disability, but the City HRL does not. Although the City HRL must be construed liberally to ensure maximum protection … , certification as a medical marijuana patient is (other than as specified for purposes of claims under the State HRL) a legal classification. It is not a “physical, medical, mental, or psychological impairment,” which is how disabilities are defined under the City HRL (Administrative Code § 8-102).

Nevertheless, plaintiff’s IBD, is a physical impairment and thus a disability under the City HRL. Accordingly, issues of fact exist as to whether defendant should have permitted plaintiff to treat her IBD through the medical use of marijuana, as a reasonable accommodation. Gordon v Consolidated Edison Inc.,2021 NY Slip Op 00492, First Dept 1-28-21

 

, , ,

A PUBLIC LIBRARY IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE PREVAILING WAGE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LABOR LAW; THEREFORE THE CLEANING CONTRACTOR HIRED BY THE LIBRARY WAS NOT REQUIRED TO PAY ITS EMPLOYEES THE PREVAILING WAGE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lynch, reversing Supreme Court, determined the public library was not subject to the prevailing wage requirements of the Labor Law, Therefore the petitioner cleaning service, hired by the library, was not required to pay its employees the prevailing wage:

Although we are mindful that the prevailing wage law “is to be interpreted with the degree of liberality essential to the attainment of the end in view”… , that mandate does not permit an overly-broad reading of the statute that expands its reach to noncovered entities … . The library at issue undoubtedly performs a public function and is closely intertwined with the school district that it serves, but it is not itself “a municipal corporation, school district, district corporation [or] board of cooperative educational services” — the entities that are considered to be “[p]olitical subdivision[s]” of the state for purposes of public contracts … . By statute, an “education corporation” and a “school district” are separately defined, indicating “that they are mutually exclusive” … . An “education corporation” is a type of corporation formed for reasons “other than for profit” … , whereas a “school district” is a type of “municipal corporation” … . Reflecting its status as a distinct entity, the library’s Board of Trustees is vested with independent decision-making authority and operational control … . Nor do we view the library as “operat[ing] a public improvement” so as to be considered a public benefit corporation within the embrace of Labor Law § 230 (3) … , or as constituting any of the other public entities included within Labor Law article 9. Consequently, we hold that the library at issue is not a public agency within the meaning of Labor Law § 230 (3). Matter of Executive Cleaning Servs. Corp. v New York State Dept. of Labor, 2021 NY Slip Op 00461, Third Dept 1-28-21

 

, , ,

CLAIMS BY CORRECTIONS OFFICERS SEEKING TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS TO PROVIDE TRAINING AND EQUIPMENT FOR DEALING WITH VIOLENT PRISONERS WERE NOT JUSTICIABLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the allegations by the plaintiff corrections officers concerning training and equipment for dealing with violent prisoners were not justiciable:

These claims are not justiciable. In seeking an order that would require the Department of Correction (DOC) to make specific decisions on staffing, training, and equipment, plaintiffs would have the courts involved in the management of DOC policy, thereby interfering with the discretion granted to DOC under the New York City Charter … . Unlike the claims brought in Center for Independence of the Disabled v Metropolitan Transp. Auth. (184 AD3d 197 [1st Dept 2020]), plaintiffs’ claims, that DOC’s current training/equipment scheme for correction officers fails to satisfy the statutory safe workplace requirement, are not well suited for judicial review, because they do not involve the protection of a fundamental right to be free from discrimination but would instead embroil the judiciary in extensive consideration of policy, and the remedy sought would require the courts to take on the improper task of mandating the specifics of DOC’s plans and operations. Correction Officers’ Benevolent Assn., Inc. v City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 00109, First Dept 1-12-21

 

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy