You are here: / Employment Law
,

BECAUSE PETITIONER WAS REINSTATED IN HER JOB AND BACKPAY HAD BEEN PROVIDED FOR THE PERIOD OF WRONGFUL SUSPENSION BY THE TIME THE CONTEMPT HEARING WAS HELD, PETITIONER COULD NOT SHOW SHE HAD BEEN PREJUDICED BY ANY FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE RELEVANT ORDER; THEREFORE THE EMPLOYER SHOULD NOT HAVE HELD IN CONTEMPT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner’s employer (NYS Department of Transportation [DOT}]) should not have been held in contempt for the alleged failure to quickly restore petitioner to the payroll and provide backpay because DOT had fulfilled those directives by the time the contempt hearing was held:

… [W]e conclude that the court erred in granting that part of petitioner’s motion seeking to have the DOT respondents adjudged in contempt of the October 2015 judgment. “A finding of civil contempt must be supported by four elements: (1) a lawful order of the court, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, was in effect; (2) [i]t must appear, with reasonable certainty, that the order has been disobeyed; (3) the party to be held in contempt must have had knowledge of the court’s order, although it is not necessary that the order actually have been served upon the party; and (4) prejudice to the right of a party to the litigation must be demonstrated” … . A movant seeking a contempt order bears the burden of establishing the foregoing elements by clear and convincing evidence … . We review a court’s ruling on a contempt motion for an abuse of discretion … .

Here, we conclude that petitioner failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the failure of the DOT respondents to immediately comply with the directives of the October 2015 judgment ” defeat[ed], impair[ed], impede[d] or prejudice[d]’ ” petitioner’s rights … . We are mindful that “[a]ny penalty imposed [for a civil contempt] is designed not to punish but, rather, to compensate the injured private party or to coerce compliance with the court’s mandate or both” … . By the time the court conducted the hearing on petitioner’s contempt motion, it was undisputed that she had been restored to the payroll, was receiving payment, and had been awarded back pay for the time she was wrongly suspended without pay. Thus, the goals of civil contempt would not be furthered by granting petitioner’s motion absent any prejudice to her once the relevant DOT respondents complied with the directives of the October 2015 judgment and restored her to paid status. Matter of Mundell v New York State Dept. of Transp., 2020 NY Slip Op 04099, Fourth Dept 7-17-20

 

, , ,

ARBITRATOR’S DECISION FINDING CLAIMANT WAS PROPERLY DISCHARGED FOR MISCONDUCT ENTITLED TO COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL EFFECT IN THE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, determined the arbitration decision pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement should have been given collateral estoppel effect by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in the unemployment insurance proceeding. The arbitrator found that the claimant engaged in misconduct warranting discharge. The arbitrator’s decision was issued prior to the ALJ’s decision. The ALJ found claimant did not engage in misconduct and was entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

Although “the Board is not bound by arbitration decisions regarding [a] claimant’s discharge issued subsequent to the time the Board rendered its decision”… , the Board was informed of the arbitration decision prior to its decision. As such, the factual findings of the arbitrator should have been accorded collateral estoppel effect in relation to the final unemployment insurance decision, so long as the parties had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the misconduct issue at the arbitration hearing … . The fact that the arbitration decision was issued after the conclusion of the unemployment insurance hearing does not preclude its consideration for collateral estoppel purposes, as “the final factfinder in the administrative process is the Board, not the ALJ” … . As the Board indicated that the arbitrator’s decision was not part of the record before it — despite that decision being the focus of, and a copy of it annexed to, the employer’s administrative appeal — the matter must be remitted in order for the employer to submit the arbitration decision into the record and to provide an opportunity for claimant and the employer to provide additional evidence and testimony regarding the nature of the arbitration hearing … . Matter of Bruce (Town of N. Hempstead–Commissioner of Labor), 2020 NY Slip Op 03705, Third Dept 7-2-20

 

, ,

PERSONAL INJURY ACTION BY MOTHER OF A 14-YEAR-OLD KILLED WHEN WORKING ILLEGALLY ON DEFENDANT FARM PROPERLY DISMISSED; THE RECOVERY UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW WAS THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY BECAUSE THE INTENTIONAL-TORT EXCEPTION DID NOT APPLY; THE ACTION WAS PRECLUDED BY THE RES JUDICATA DOCTRINE; IN ADDITION THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANTS ACTED WILLFULLY OR INTENTIONALLY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the personal injury action brought by decedent’s mother was properly dismissed because the recovery pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation Law was the exclusive remedy. Plaintiff’s decedent, 14-years-old, was killed operating a skid steer while illegally employed by defendant’s (Park’s) farm. Although plaintiffs recovered Workers’ Compensation benefits, plaintiffs argued an exception to the exclusive-remedy restriction for intentional torts applied. The Third Department held the exclusive-remedy restriction applied and there was no evidence of willful or intentional conduct on the part of the defendants:

Inasmuch as the [Workers’ Compensation] Board had already “determined that [decedent’s] injuries were suffered accidentally and in the course of employment” for the Farm, the claim that the Farm or its employees are liable “for an intentional tort based on the same event is barred by the exclusive remedy and finality provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law, and by principles of res judicata” … . Even if the Board’s decision did not have preclusive effect, however, Supreme Court properly rejected the contention that Park engaged in “deliberate acts . . . to injure [decedent] or to have him injured” so as to bring this case within an exception to the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law … . The record reflects that decedent used the skid steer without anyone’s knowledge and that, following the investigation into decedent’s death, Park pleaded guilty to willful failure to pay unemployment insurance contributions (see Labor Law § 633), endangering the welfare of a child (see Penal Law § 260.10) and prohibited employment of a minor (see Labor Law § 133). It could be inferred from those facts that Park was negligent in failing to supervise decedent, or even reckless in exposing decedent to dangerous work that his age left him unsuited for, but not that Park acted out of a “willful intent to harm” decedent, as required … . Smith v Park, 2020 NY Slip Op 03583, Third Dept 6-25-20

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH DISFAVORED, DISCLOSURE OF REDACTED TAX RETURNS WAS WARRANTED IN THIS CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that the disclosure of tax returns is disfavored, but agreed with Supreme Court that disclosure of the redacted returns in this Labor-Law/employment-law dispute was warranted:

Plaintiffs claim that between 2010 and 2016 defendant employed them as a caretaker for her ailing aunt and that defendant violated, inter alia, several sections of the Department of Labor Regulations (12 NYCRR) requiring overtime pay, a minimum wage, and additional pay for split shifts. Defendant denies that she was plaintiffs’ employer for purposes of the regulations and provisions of the Labor Law, but admits that she paid plaintiffs by check from 2014 to 2016, albeit on her aunt’s behalf. Plaintiffs claim they were paid in cash by defendant between 2010 and 2013. Defendant, who denies that she was the source of the cash payments, seeks plaintiffs’ federal and state tax returns for 2010 to 2013, claiming she needs the returns to verify the cash amounts, as well as plaintiffs’ assertion that they were employees, and not independent contractors.

… [D]efendant demonstrated both that the specific information ordered disclosed was necessary to defend the action, and unavailable from other sources … . Since plaintiffs were paid in cash between 2010 and 2013 and there is no other evidence in the record establishing who paid their wages and how much they were paid during those years, defendant showed a specific need for the production of the three years of tax returns, which might show the amounts claimed by plaintiffs as income from the caretaker work, as well as whether they claimed the income as wages or as money earned through self-employment. Defendant demonstrated that investigating plaintiffs’ bank accounts would be inconclusive, since pay deposited in the accounts could have been commingled with other amounts, and because one of the plaintiffs claimed that she used several banking institutions and did not make deposits on a predictable basis. We note that the court already inspected the tax returns in camera and deemed them relevant. Currid v Valea, 2020 NY Slip Op 03590, First Dept 6-25-20

 

,

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

 

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