You are here: / Employment Law
,

PLAINTIFF’S DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION CAUSES OF ACTION UNDER THE STATE AND CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THE DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE VERSUS CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED IN SOME DEPTH (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, determined plaintiff’s disability discrimination claims under the NYS and NYC Human Rights Law (HRL) properly survived summary judgment. Issues of fact were raised about whether defendant sufficiently engaged in dialogue about accommodating plaintiff’s needs prior to terminating her employment. The decision explains the different proof requirement for disability discrimination and accommodation under the NYSHML and the NYCHML, noting that the NYCHML imposes a heavier burden on the employer than the NYSHRL:

Under both the State and City HRLs, “the first step in providing a reasonable accommodation is to engage in a good faith interactive process that assesses the needs of the disabled individual and the reasonableness of the accommodation requested. The interactive process continues until, if possible, an accommodation reasonable to the employee and employer is reached” … . * * *

Unlike the State HRL where the employer must “engage[] in interactions with the employee revealing at least some deliberation upon the viability of” an accommodation … , the City HRL clearly requires a more rigorous process … . Indeed, to emphasize the seriousness by which employers must engage in the interactive process, the City Council amended the City HRL in 2018 … . The Committee Report … states: “This bill would clarify the reasonable accommodation requirement by expressly requiring, as a part of the reasonable accommodation process, that covered entities engage in a cooperative dialog with individuals who they know or should know may require accommodation.” * * *

Here, defendant cannot prevail in its summary judgment motion seeking to dismiss plaintiff’s State HRL disability claim because there are issues of fact as to whether defendant engaged plaintiff in a good faith interactive process to ascertain the viability of an appropriate accommodation. * * *

Given that the City HRL is even broader than the State HRL … , defendant has likewise failed to show that it engaged in an interactive process with plaintiff. Hosking v Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Ctr., 2020 NY Slip Op 03484, First Dept 6-18-20

 

, , ,

UNDER THE TERMS OF THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AND THE APPLICABLE INSURANCE LAW PROVISIONS, AND UNDER THE PRINCIPLES OF UNJUST ENRICHMENT, PLAINTIFF EMPLOYEE, NOT DEFENDANT EMPLOYER, WAS ENTITLED TO THE DEMUTUALIZATION PROCEEDS WHEN THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE INSURANCE CARRIER CONVERTED FROM A MUTUAL TO A STOCK INSURANCE COMPANY, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT EMPLOYER PAID THE POLICY PREMIUMS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mulvey, dealt with insurance law, employment law, contract law, unjust enrichment and stare decisis in this dispute between defendant employer and plaintiff employee over the “demutualization” proceeds of an insurance policy. Plaintiff was employed as a certified nurse midwife by defendant. As part of the employment agreement defendant was required to maintain and pay the premiums for a malpractice insurance policy. When the insurance company (MLMIC) converted from a mutual insurance company to a stock insurance company (demutualization) the policyholder was entitled to nearly $75,000. Plaintiff-employee claimed the money was hers and brought an action for a declaratory judgment. Supreme Court agreed with plaintiff but, because there was no on-point appellate decision by the Court of Appeals or the Third Department, Supreme Court was required to follow a First Department decision and, based on that decision, found in favor of defendant-employer. The Third Department noted that it, unlike Supreme Court, was not bound by stare decisis and reversed:

… [P]er the relevant statute [(Insurance Law § 7307 [e] [3])] and the conversion plan’s definitions, plaintiff was entitled to the cash consideration … . * * *

… [T]he parties’ employment agreement provided that plaintiff would perform professional services for defendant. In exchange, defendant would pay her a stated salary and provide specified benefits including, as relevant here, obtaining and paying the premiums for professional liability insurance covering plaintiff. The record indicates that defendant purchased, controlled and maintained such a policy from MLMIC in plaintiff’s favor. Defendant was the policy administrator, selected the coverage and terms, and was responsible for all financial aspects of the policy. Notably, defendant paid annual premiums of approximately $25,710; plaintiff paid nothing toward the premiums and those amounts were not counted as income to plaintiff. Defendant received from MLMIC dividends, premium reductions and the return of premiums when the policy was canceled upon plaintiff leaving defendant’s employ, all without any objection by plaintiff. * * *

The reality is that neither party here bargained for the demutualization proceeds. Moreover, neither party actually paid for them, because membership interests in a mutual insurance company are not paid for by policy premiums; such rights are “acquired . . . at no cost, but rather as an incident of the structure of mutual insurance policies,” through operation of law and the company’s charter and bylaws … . * * *

Neither party changed its position based on demutualization and plaintiff’s conduct was neither tortious nor fraudulent. … [W]e conclude that defendant failed to meet its burden to establish its affirmative defense and counterclaim alleging unjust enrichment. Schoch v Lake Champlain OB-GYN, P.C., 2020 NY Slip Op 03444, Third Dept 6-18-20

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE RELEASE EXECUTED BY PLAINTIFF WITH RESPECT TO TWO DEFENDANTS PRECLUDED AN ACTION FOR CONTRIBUTION BY A THIRD DEFENDANT WHICH WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE RELEASE, IT DID NOT PRECLUDE AN ACTION FOR COMMON-LAW INDEMNIFICATION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the release executed by plaintiff in this workplace injury case precluded a contribution action by a defendant which was not a party to the release, but did not preclude an action for common-law indemnification:

In 2016, plaintiff was allegedly injured while working at a commercial construction site. Plaintiff accepted $2,000 in settlement of his claims against third-party defendants, Village Air and Electric, Inc. and Jimerico Construction, Inc. — his employer and the contractor that retained it to do work at the construction site, respectively — and executed a release agreeing to hold them harmless. He then commenced this action against defendant, another contractor whose employees had allegedly caused the condition that led to his injuries. Defendant answered and impleaded Village Air and Jimerico, claiming that it was entitled to contribution and/or indemnification.

Jimerico moved … to dismiss the third-party complaint on the ground that the release executed by plaintiff defeated the contribution and indemnification claims (see CPLR 3211 [a] [5]; General Obligations Law § 15-108) … .

… [T]he release executed by plaintiff “relieve[d] [Jimerico] from liability to any other person for contribution” pursuant to CPLR article 14 and, as a result, Supreme Court should have dismissed defendant’s contribution claim against Jimerico (General Obligations Law § 15-108 [b] …). In contrast, Jimerico’s “settlement with . . . plaintiff did not preclude [defendant] from seeking common-law indemnification from” it … . Koretnicki v Northwoods Concrete, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 03445, Third Dept 6-18-20

 

, , ,

SUPREME COURT WAS BOUND TO FOLLOW A FIRST DEPARTMENT DECISION BECAUSE THERE WERE NO ON-POINT DECISIONS FROM THE THIRD DEPARTMENT OR THE COURT OF APPEALS; HOWEVER THE THIRD DEPARTMENT IS NOT SO BOUND; SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, dealt with the issue of stare decisis in this dispute between defendant employer and plaintiff employee over the “demutualization” proceeds of an insurance policy. Plaintiff was employed as a certified nurse midwife by defendant. As part of the employment agreement defendant was required to maintain and pay the premiums for a malpractice insurance policy. When the insurance company converted from a mutual insurance company to a stock insurance company (demutualization) the policyholder was entitled to nearly $50,000. Plaintiff-employee claimed the money was hers and brought an action for a declaratory judgment. Supreme Court agreed with plaintiff but, because there was no on-point appellate decision by the Court of Appeals or the Third Department, Supreme Court was required to follow a First Department decision and, based on that decision, found in favor of defendant-employer. The Third Department noted that it, unlike Supreme Court, was not bound by stare decisis and reversed:

Initially, Supreme Court was “bound by the doctrine of stare decisis to apply precedent established in another Department,” as no relevant precedent was available from this Court or the Court of Appeals … . However, this Court is not so bound … . We agree with Supreme Court’s inclinations — although that court was constrained by stare decisis not to follow them — and disagree with the First Department’s holding in Matter of Schaffer, Schonholz & Drossman, LLP v Title (171 AD3d at 465 …). Therefore, for the reasons stated in our decision in Schoch v Lake Champlain OB-GYN, P.C. (___ AD3d ___ [decided herewith]), we reverse. Shoback v Broome Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.C., 2020 NY Slip Op 03447, Third Dept 6-18-20

 

, ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SEX AND DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACTION BY A TENURED ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR ON THE EQUAL PAY ACT CAUSE OF ACTION AND CERTAIN NYS HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the Equal Pay Act (EPA) cause of action and certain NYS Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) causes of action should not have been dismissed in this sex and disability discrimination action brought by a tenured associate professor:

With respect to the cause of action alleging violations of the EPA, defendant failed to establish as a matter of law that the difference in pay between plaintiff and a less senior male colleague who performed similar work under similar conditions “is due to a factor other than sex” … . * * *

With respect to the causes of action for sexual discrimination under Title VII and the NYSHRL, we conclude that issues of fact exist whether defendant’s challenged actions were “based upon nondiscriminatory reasons,” and thus summary judgment is precluded on those causes of action … . Indeed, defendant offered inconsistent and shifting justifications for the pay disparity … . * * *

… [T]he court erred in granting the motion with respect to the sixth cause of action, alleging violations of the NYSHRL based on unlawful retaliation … . To establish a claim for unlawful retaliation under the NYSHRL, a plaintiff must show that “(1) she has engaged in protected activity, (2) her employer was aware that she participated in such activity, (3) she suffered an adverse employment action based upon her activity, and (4) there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action” … . …  [I]ssues of fact exist whether defendant unlawfully retaliated against plaintiff after she complained of gender discrimination when it required her to retain her position as the undergraduate coordinator while at the same time maintaining her regular course load … . Nordenstam v State Univ. of N.Y. Coll. of Envtl. Science & Forestry, 2020 NY Slip Op 03346, Fourth Dept 6-12-20

 

, ,

DIFFERENT STANDARDS OF PROOF OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NY CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, AS OPPOSED TO THE NY STATE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, EXPLAINED IN SOME DEPTH; PLAINTIFF’S CAUSE OF ACTION FOR GENDER DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NY CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW ON A THEORY OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT REINSTATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a comprehensive opinion by Justice Brathwaite Nelson, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s cause of action for gender discrimination on a theory of a hostile work environment under the NY City Human Rights Law should not have been dismissed. The Second Department held that the “materially adverse” change in employment conditions, which applies to the NY State Human Rights Law, does not apply to the NY City Human Rights Law. The standard under the NY City Human Rights Law is a showing that plaintiff was subject to an unfavorable change or treated less well than other employees on the basis of a protected characteristic. The Second Department took pains to explain the different standards of proof under the State and City Human Rights Laws:

… [U]nder the City Human Rights Law, in order to demonstrate liability, a plaintiff need not establish that she or he was subjected to a “materially adverse” change to terms and conditions of employment, but only that she or he was subject to an unfavorable change or treated less well than other employees on the basis of a protected characteristic … . * * *

The alleged comment by Denesopolis [plaintiff’s boss], that he did not “like women on this job because they have babies,” plainly expresses a view of the role of women in the workplace. Considering the totality of the circumstances, which include the plaintiff’s testimony that Denesopolis expressed displeasure upon learning of her transfer to his unit as a pregnant woman, and then again at her second pregnancy, we cannot say that this is a “truly insubstantial case” as a matter of law. In addition, while it might be inferred that the incidents in which Denesopolis publicly reprimanded the plaintiff and referred to her as an “empty suit” and “Sergeant do nothing” were related to deficiencies in her performance as a sergeant, on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, we must view the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. A jury could agree with the plaintiff that the conduct was based upon her pregnancies and conclude that the plaintiff was subject to a workplace in which she was treated less well than others because of her gender. Accordingly, the cause of action alleging gender discrimination on a theory of a hostile work environment under the City Human Rights Law must be reinstated.  Golston-Green v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 02768, Second Dept 5-13-20

 

, , , ,

RESPONDENT WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO ARBITRATE HIS TERMINATION PURSUANT TO THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BY BRINGING A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SEEKING THE SAME RELIEF ON THE SAME GROUNDS, AS WELL AS DAMAGES (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined respondent (Ferreira) had waived his right to arbitrate his discharge from employment as a teacher pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) because he sought an action at law seeking the same relief on the same grounds, as well as damages:

“Generally, when addressing waiver, courts should consider the amount of litigation that has occurred, the length of time between the start of the litigation and the arbitration request, and whether prejudice has been established” … . Moreover, the Court of Appeals has found no waiver where the ultimate objective of multiple procedures is the same, but the grounds urged for relief are discrete … .

Here, Ferreira waived his right to arbitrate because he chose to pursue an action at law asserting virtually the same grounds for relief and remedies sought in the arbitration. His notice of claim, alleging breach of contract, was filed approximately three months prior to his request for arbitration. An action was thereafter commenced, which was still pending at the time of oral argument, and, “[b]y commencing an action at law involving arbitrable issues, [Ferreira] waived whatever right [he] had to arbitration” … . Although use of litigation to preserve the status quo while awaiting arbitration does not effectuate waiver, Ferreira did not merely seek an equitable relief; rather, he sought monetary damages and other affirmative relief as a result of the termination of his employment and petitioner’s alleged violation of the CBA … . Matter of New Roots Charter Sch. (Ferreira), 2020 NY Slip Op 02223, Third Dept 4-9-20

 

, , ,

WHETHER THE SCHOOL PRINCIPAL RECEIVED COMPETENT REPRESENTATION AT HER DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION WAS RELEVANT TO HER DECERTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE NYS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; THEREFORE THE MOTION TO QUASH THE SUBPOENA SEEKING THE ATTORNEY’S TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the motion to quash a subpoena seeking an attorney’s (Guerra’s) testimony in a teacher decertification proceeding should not have been granted. The attorney was seeking employment with the NYC Department of Education (NYCDOE) at the time she was representing the respondent school principal (Klingsberg) in disciplinary proceedings brought by the NYCDOE. The issue of whether respondent received competent representation in the disciplinary proceedings was relevant to whether those proceedings should be given collateral estoppel effect in the New York State Department of Education (SED) teacher decertification proceedings:

“[A] subpoena will be quashed only where the futility of the process to uncover anything legitimate is inevitable or obvious or where the information sought is utterly irrelevant to any proper inquiry” … . The party moving to quash bears “the burden of establishing that the subpoena should be [quashed] under such circumstances” … . * * *

… [W]hether Klingsberg was competently represented at that prior proceeding so as to warrant giving preclusive effect to its factual findings is very much in issue in this decertification proceeding and, given that Guerra has firsthand knowledge regarding her representation of Klingsberg at that prior proceeding, it cannot be said that “the information sought [from Guerra] is utterly irrelevant” to the decertification inquiry … . Rather, Guerra’s testimony is highly relevant to whether collateral estoppel will be applied in the pending decertification proceeding. For this reason, petitioners have not satisfied their burden of proof on their motion to quash the subpoena … . Matter of Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y. v New York State Dept. of Educ., 2020 NY Slip Op 02140, Third Dept 4-2-20

 

, , ,

AN ATTORNEY REPRESENTING A SCHOOL-EMPLOYEE-UNION-MEMBER IN DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT CAN NOT BE LIABLE IN MALPRACTICE TO THE UNION MEMBER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the attorney (Guerra) who represented a union can not be held liable in malpractice to individual union members in disciplinary proceedings:

Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(2), a party may move to dismiss a cause of action on the ground that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction as the cause of action is preempted by federal law … . Here, we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination that the complaint insofar as asserted against Guerra is preempted by section 301 of the Federal Labor Management Relations Act, and that attorneys such as Guerra who perform services for and on behalf of a union may not be held liable in malpractice to individual grievants such as the plaintiff where the services performed constitute part of the collective bargaining process … . Klingsberg v Council of Sch. Supervisors & Adm’rs-Local 1, 2020 NY Slip Op 02083, Second Dept 3-25-20

 

, ,

LABOR LAW 198-b, WHICH PROHIBITS AN EMPLOYER’S COLLECTING KICKBACKS FROM AN EMPLOYEE, DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST THE EMPLOYER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Labor Law 198-b, which essentially prohibits an employer from collecting kickbacks from and employee, did not create a private right of action:

Plaintiff, a former teacher at defendant Utica Academy of Science Charter School (UASCS), commenced this action seeking to recover damages based upon allegations that there in which plaintiff was required to provide donations to [defendant] High Way in the form of illegal kickbacks of his salary under threat of demotion or termination. In his third cause of action, plaintiff alleged that defendants’ conduct violated Labor Law § 198-b, and plaintiff sought damages arising from that violation pursuant to Labor Law § 198. …

Although we offer no opinion with respect to whether other provisions within article 6 of the Labor Law afford private rights of action, we agree with High Way that the legislature did not intend to create a private right of action for violations of Labor Law § 198-b … , inasmuch as ” [t]he [l]egislature specifically considered and expressly provided for enforcement mechanisms’ in the statute itself” … . Indeed, by its express terms, a violation of section 198-b constitutes a misdemeanor offense … . Konkur v Utica Academy of Science Charter Sch., 2020 NY Slip Op 01827, Fourth Dept 3-13-20

 

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