You are here: / Employment Law
, , ,

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE’S RULE PROHIBITING DEPARTMENT INSPECTORS FROM RUNNING FOR PUBLIC OFFICE IS NOT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTION OF FREE SPEECH (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a one-sentence memorandum, over a two-judge dissent, determined that the Department of Agriculture's regulation which prohibits employees responsible for inspecting agricultural facilities (like milk plants) from seeking public office (i.e., a county legislator) was not an unconstitutional restriction of free speech. Matter of Spence v New York State Dept. of Agric. & Mkts., 2018 NY Slip Op 06071, CtApp 9-18-18

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE'S RULE PROHIBITING DEPARTMENT INSPECTORS FROM RUNNING FOR PUBLIC OFFICE IS NOT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTION OF FREE SPEECH (CT APP))/ELECTION LAW (DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE'S RULE PROHIBITING DEPARTMENT INSPECTORS FROM RUNNING FOR PUBLIC OFFICE IS NOT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTION OF FREE SPEECH (CT APP))/MUNICIPAL LAW (DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE'S RULE PROHIBITING DEPARTMENT INSPECTORS FROM RUNNING FOR PUBLIC OFFICE IS NOT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTION OF FREE SPEECH (CT APP))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE'S RULE PROHIBITING DEPARTMENT INSPECTORS FROM RUNNING FOR PUBLIC OFFICE IS NOT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTION OF FREE SPEECH (CT APP))/AGRICULTURE, DEPARTMENT OF (DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE'S RULE PROHIBITING DEPARTMENT INSPECTORS FROM RUNNING FOR PUBLIC OFFICE IS NOT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTION OF FREE SPEECH (CT APP))

, ,

HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PHYSICIANS ALLEGED TO HAVE COMMITTED MALPRACTICE WERE NOT EMPLOYEES AND WERE NOT NEGLIGENT, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the hospital's motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action was properly denied. The hospital did not demonstrate that the two physicians alleged to have committed malpractice were not employees of the hospital and did not demonstrate the two physicians did not deviate from the acceptable standards of medical care:

“In general, a hospital may not be held vicariously liable for the malpractice of a private attending physician who is not an employee” … . Therefore, when hospital employees, such as resident physicians and nurses, have participated in the treatment of a patient, the hospital may not be held vicariously liable for resulting injuries where the hospital employees have merely carried out the private attending physician's orders … . These rules shielding a hospital from liability do not apply when: (1) “the staff follows orders despite knowing that the doctor's orders are so clearly contraindicated by normal practice that ordinary prudence requires inquiry into the correctness of the orders'”… ; (2) the hospital's employees have committed independent acts of negligence … ; or (3) the words or conduct of the hospital give rise to the appearance and belief that the physician possesses the authority to act on behalf of the hospital … . “Thus, in order to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law defeating a claim of vicarious liability, a hospital must demonstrate that the physician alleged to have committed the malpractice was an independent contractor and not a hospital employee'” … . …

The hospital defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that both physicians alleged to have committed malpractice, the two attending nephrologists, were independent contractors [not emplyees]. Dupree v Westchester County Health Care Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 06000, Second Dept 9-12-18

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PHYSICIANS ALLEGED TO HAVE COMMITTED MALPRACTICE WERE NOT EMPLOYEES AND WERE NOT NEGLIGENT, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PHYSICIANS ALLEGED TO HAVE COMMITTED MALPRACTICE WERE NOT EMPLOYEES AND WERE NOT NEGLIGENT, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, HOSPITALS, HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PHYSICIANS ALLEGED TO HAVE COMMITTED MALPRACTICE WERE NOT EMPLOYEES AND WERE NOT NEGLIGENT, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/HOSPITALS (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PHYSICIANS ALLEGED TO HAVE COMMITTED MALPRACTICE WERE NOT EMPLOYEES AND WERE NOT NEGLIGENT, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW PROTECTS AGAINST TERMINATION BASED UPON AN EMPLOYEE’S MARRIAGE TO A PARTICULAR PERSON WHO HAD LEFT TO WORK FOR A COMPETITOR, THERE WAS NO NEED TO ALLEGE THAT THE EMPLOYER WAS BIASED AGAINST MARRIED COUPLES GENERALLY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, in a matter of first impression, determined that terminating a person the employer (Fidessa) believed was married to another employee who had left to work for a competing employer stated a cause of action for discrimination based upon marital status under the New York City Human Rights Law:

The City HRL states, in relevant part: “It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice: (a) For an employer or an employee or agent thereof, because of the actual or perceived . . . marital status . . .(2) To refuse to hire or employ or to bar or to discharge from employment such person or (3) To discriminate against such person in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment” … .

From the complaint it appears that Fidessa treated plaintiff and his partner differently from [a] similarly situated couple based on its perception that they were married to one another and the members of the other couple were not. Thus, the question is whether discrimination based on “marital status” encompasses discrimination based on marital status in relation to a person relevant to Fidessa. In other words, is an employer prohibited from discharging an employee because of the employee's marriage to a particular person.

For the purposes of this analysis, the fact that defendant was not alleged to be “biased against” married couples in all circumstances is of no moment: the factor in terminating plaintiff's employment was plaintiff's marital status in relation to the employee who left the company. Thus, plaintiff's termination was based on his marital status. Morse v Fidessa Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 05975, First Dept 9-6-18

HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW PROTECTS AGAINST TERMINATION BASED UPON AN EMPLOYEE'S MARRIAGE TO A PARTICULAR PERSON WHO HAD LEFT TO WORK FOR A COMPETITOR, THERE WAS NO NEED TO ALLEGE THAT THE  EMPLOYER WAS BIASED AGAINST MARRIED COUPLES GENERALLY  (FIRST DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW PROTECTS AGAINST TERMINATION BASED UPON AN EMPLOYEE'S MARRIAGE TO A PARTICULAR PERSON WHO HAD LEFT TO WORK FOR A COMPETITOR, THERE WAS NO NEED TO ALLEGE THAT THE  EMPLOYER WAS BIASED AGAINST MARRIED COUPLES GENERALLY  (FIRST DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW PROTECTS AGAINST TERMINATION BASED UPON AN EMPLOYEE'S MARRIAGE TO A PARTICULAR PERSON WHO HAD LEFT TO WORK FOR A COMPETITOR, THERE WAS NO NEED TO ALLEGE THAT THE  EMPLOYER WAS BIASED AGAINST MARRIED COUPLES GENERALLY  (FIRST DEPT))/MARITAL STATUS (EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW PROTECTS AGAINST TERMINATION BASED UPON AN EMPLOYEE'S MARRIAGE TO A PARTICULAR PERSON WHO HAD LEFT TO WORK FOR A COMPETITOR, THERE WAS NO NEED TO ALLEGE THAT THE  EMPLOYER WAS BIASED AGAINST MARRIED COUPLES GENERALLY  (FIRST DEPT))

, , ,

IN THIS QUI TAM (WHISTLEBLOWER) ACTION THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED DEFENDANT CAPTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY FILED FALSE TAX RETURNS AND TERMINATED THE WHISTLEBLOWER FOR RAISING HIS CONCERNS WITH HIS SUPERIORS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, determined a qui tam (whistleblower) action alleging a captive insurance company (Moody's) violated the New York False Claims Act (NYFCA) by filing false tax returns properly survived the motion to dismiss. The court further held that the relator's retaliation claim, alleging unlawful termination of employment for raising questions about Moody's taxes, also properly survived the motion to dismiss. Captive insurance company's receive favorable tax treatment only if they meet certain criteria:

While the typical NYFCA claim involves the State paying out money on account of a false claim, a “reverse false claim” occurs when someone uses a false record to conceal or avoid an obligation to pay the government … . A defendant knowingly makes a false claim under the NYFCA if the defendant had “actual knowledge” of the falsity of the claim or acted “in deliberate ignorance” or “reckless disregard” of its truth or falsity (State Finance Law § 188[3][a]).

The motion court correctly found that the complaint sufficiently alleges that Moody's “tax treatment of MAC was aggressive, risky, and/or abusive due to its sham nature,” and that Moody's knowingly submitted false claims. * * *

The complaint sufficiently alleges that defendants had knowledge of relator's protected activity and that they retaliated against him because of his protected activity. Relator alleges that he repeatedly complained about MAC's noncompliance with the tax laws to Moody's tax department as well as to his superiors … . Anonymous v Anonymous, 2018 NY Slip Op 05963, First Dept 8-30-18

INSURANCE LAW (IN THIS QUI TAM (WHISTLEBLOWER) ACTION THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED DEFENDANT CAPTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY FILED FALSE TAX RETURNS AND TERMINATED THE WHISTLEBLOWER FOR RAISING HIS CONCERNS WITH HIS SUPERIORS (FIRST DEPT))/CAPTIVE INSURANCE COMPANIES (IN THIS QUI TAM (WHISTLEBLOWER) ACTION THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED DEFENDANT CAPTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY FILED FALSE TAX RETURNS AND TERMINATED THE WHISTLEBLOWER FOR RAISING HIS CONCERNS WITH HIS SUPERIORS (FIRST DEPT))/TAX LAW (INSURANCE LAW, IN THIS QUI TAM (WHISTLEBLOWER) ACTION THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED DEFENDANT CAPTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY FILED FALSE TAX RETURNS AND TERMINATED THE WHISTLEBLOWER FOR RAISING HIS CONCERNS WITH HIS SUPERIORS (FIRST DEPT))/FRAUD (INSURANCE LAW, TAX LAW, IN THIS QUI TAM (WHISTLEBLOWER) ACTION THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED DEFENDANT CAPTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY FILED FALSE TAX RETURNS AND TERMINATED THE WHISTLEBLOWER FOR RAISING HIS CONCERNS WITH HIS SUPERIORS (FIRST DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (IN THIS QUI TAM (WHISTLEBLOWER) ACTION THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED DEFENDANT CAPTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY FILED FALSE TAX RETURNS AND TERMINATED THE WHISTLEBLOWER FOR RAISING HIS CONCERNS WITH HIS SUPERIORS (FIRST DEPT))/QUI TAM (IN THIS QUI TAM (WHISTLEBLOWER) ACTION THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED DEFENDANT CAPTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY FILED FALSE TAX RETURNS AND TERMINATED THE WHISTLEBLOWER FOR RAISING HIS CONCERNS WITH HIS SUPERIORS (FIRST DEPT))/WHISTLEBLOWER  (IN THIS QUI TAM (WHISTLEBLOWER) ACTION THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED DEFENDANT CAPTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY FILED FALSE TAX RETURNS AND TERMINATED THE WHISTLEBLOWER FOR RAISING HIS CONCERNS WITH HIS SUPERIORS (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

NO QUESTION OF FACT RAISED ABOUT WHETHER FENCING CLUB WAS LIABLE FOR THE SEXUAL ASSAULT OF A FENCING STUDENT BY A FENCING COACH, CLUB’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant fencing club's motion for summary judgment in this negligent hiring and supervision, negligent infliction of emotional distress action should have been granted. A fencing coach (Kfir) who worked for the club engaged in an unlawful sexual relationship with infant plaintiff, for which the coach  went to prison. The Second Department held that the respondeat superior cause of action was not viable because the coach was not acting within the scope of his employment. The court further found that the defendant club demonstrated it did not have notice of the coach's criminal propensities and did not breach a duty owed plaintiffs:

… Fencers Club established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action seeking to hold it liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, as Kfir's misconduct was committed for wholly personal motives, and not in furtherance of Fencers Club's business and within the scope of his employment … .

… Fencers Club established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it had no knowledge of any propensity by Kfir to commit sexual misconduct, either prior to or during his employment with Fencers Club . The coaches, parents, and students of the club were shocked when they learned of the criminal misconduct, which took place outside of Fencers Club's premises and in Kfir's apartment. Although it was later revealed that Kfir gave massages to the infant plaintiff and another fencing … student in a workout room, and that he made sexually provocative comments toward the infant plaintiff during fencing lessons, these incidents were never reported to Fencers Club. Much of the communication between the infant plaintiff and Kfir took place by cell phone or text message, outside of Fencers Club's purview. …

Although the plaintiffs point to the fact that Fencers Club did not conduct criminal background checks prior to hiring their instructors, “[t]here is no common-law duty to institute specific procedures for hiring employees unless the employer knows of facts that would lead a reasonably prudent person to investigate the prospective employee” … . Here, there was no evidence that Fencers Club had knowledge of any facts that would have caused a reasonably prudent person to conduct a criminal background check on Kfir. Moreover, the plaintiffs failed to come forward with any evidence that a criminal background check of Kfir would have revealed a propensity to commit sexual assault … . … Fencers Club established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging negligent infliction of emotional distress by demonstrating that it did not breach a duty of care owed to the infant plaintiff … . KM v Fencers Club, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 05923, Second Dept 8-29-18

NEGLIGENCE (NO QUESTION OF FACT RAISED ABOUT WHETHER FENCING CLUB WAS LIABLE FOR THE SEXUAL ASSAULT OF A FENCING STUDENT BY A FENCING COACH, CLUB'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENT HIRING AND SUPERVISION (NO QUESTION OF FACT RAISED ABOUT WHETHER FENCING CLUB WAS LIABLE FOR THE SEXUAL ASSAULT OF A FENCING STUDENT BY A FENCING COACH, CLUB'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (NO QUESTION OF FACT RAISED ABOUT WHETHER FENCING CLUB WAS LIABLE FOR THE SEXUAL ASSAULT OF A FENCING STUDENT BY A FENCING COACH, CLUB'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (NO QUESTION OF FACT RAISED ABOUT WHETHER FENCING CLUB WAS LIABLE FOR THE SEXUAL ASSAULT OF A FENCING STUDENT BY A FENCING COACH, CLUB'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (NO QUESTION OF FACT RAISED ABOUT WHETHER FENCING CLUB WAS LIABLE FOR THE SEXUAL ASSAULT OF A FENCING STUDENT BY A FENCING COACH, CLUB'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFF WAS A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE OF OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ON WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED, PLAINTIFF’S RECOVERY RESTRICTED TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff, who worked for Manpower Group and was injured on property owned by Crystal Springs, was not able to sue Crystal Springs. Plaintiff was deemed to be a special employee of Crystal Springs and his only remedy was Workers' Compensation:

Pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29(6), an employee who is entitled to receive workers' compensation benefits may not sue his or her employer based on injuries sustained by the employee. “For purposes of the Workers' Compensation Law, a person may be deemed to have more than one employer—a general employer and a special employer”… . “The receipt of Workers' Compensation benefits from a general employer precludes an employee from commencing a negligence action against a special employer” … .

“A special employee is one who is transferred for a limited time of whatever duration to the service of another'”… . ” [A] person's categorization as a special employee is usually a question of fact'” … “However, the determination of special employment status may be made as a matter of law where the particular, undisputed critical facts compel that conclusion and present no triable issue of fact'” … . ” Many factors are weighed in deciding whether a special employment relationship exists, and generally no single one is decisive. . . . Principal factors include who has the right to control the employee's work, who is responsible for the payment of wages and the furnishing of equipment, who has the right to discharge the employee, and whether the work being performed was in furtherance of the special employer's or the general employer's business. . . . The most significant factor is who controls and directs the manner, details, and ultimate result of the employee's work.'”  James v Crystal Springs Water, 2018 NY Slip Op 05756, Second Dept 8-15-18

WORKERS' COMPENSATION (PLAINTIFF WAS A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE OF OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ON WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED, PLAINTIFF'S RECOVERY RESTRICTED TO WORKERS' COMPENSATION BENEFITS (SECOND DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (SPECIAL EMPLOYEE, WORKERS' COMPENSATION, PLAINTIFF WAS A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE OF OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ON WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED, PLAINTIFF'S RECOVERY RESTRICTED TO WORKERS' COMPENSATION BENEFITS (SECOND DEPT))/SPECIAL EMPLOYEE (WORKERS' COMPENSATION, PLAINTIFF WAS A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE OF OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ON WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED, PLAINTIFF'S RECOVERY RESTRICTED TO WORKERS' COMPENSATION BENEFITS (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

LOST PENSION BENEFITS AS DAMAGES IN THIS SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASE WERE PROPERLY CALCULATED USING THE TOTAL OFFSET METHOD (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a matter of first impression, determined the damages award for loss of Seabury’s pension benefits in this sexual harassment case was properly calculated using the “total offset” method:

We … reject petitioner’s contention that SDHR [State Division of Human Rights] erred by failing to reduce the damages awarded for loss of pension benefits to present value. Citing Stratton v Department of Aging for City of New York (132 F3d 869, 882 [2d Cir 1997]), SDHR explained that it had not discounted the award to present value because it had not factored future salary increases into its award … . Whether the Human Rights Law (see Executive Law art 15) requires that awards for future damages be discounted to present value is an issue of first impression in the appellate courts of New York. However, the Court of Appeals has noted that federal case law is instructive in the employment discrimination context… . We acknowledge that the award for Seabury’s lost pension benefits can only be a “rough approximation” of the amount necessary to restore her to the position that she would have occupied had she not been the victim of sexual harassment, because neither her lost income stream nor the effect of future price inflation can be predicted with complete confidence … . One permissible method for approximating damages that arises from a loss of future income — known as the “total offset” method — is to neither consider future salary increases nor discount the damages to present value based on the presumption that future salary increases are offset by the discount rate used to calculate the present value of a damages award… . Thus, SDHR did not err by adopting the total offset method to determine the value of Seabury’s lost pension benefits … . Matter of Rensselaer County Sheriff’s Dept. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 2018 NY Slip Op 05719, Third Dept 8-9-18

EMPLOYMENT LAW (HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, SEXUAL HARASSMENT, LOST PENSION BENEFITS AS DAMAGES IN THIS SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASE WERE PROPERLY CALCULATED USING THE TOTAL OFFSET METHOD (THIRD DEPT))/HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (SEXUAL HARASSMENT, LOST PENSION BENEFITS AS DAMAGES IN THIS SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASE WERE PROPERLY CALCULATED USING THE TOTAL OFFSET METHOD (THIRD DEPT))/DAMAGES (HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, EMPLOYMENT LAW, LOST PENSION BENEFITS AS DAMAGES IN THIS SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASE WERE PROPERLY CALCULATED USING THE TOTAL OFFSET METHOD (THIRD DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, SEXUAL HARASSMENT, LOST PENSION BENEFITS AS DAMAGES IN THIS SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASE WERE PROPERLY CALCULATED USING THE TOTAL OFFSET METHOD (THIRD DEPT))/TOTAL OFFSET METHOD (DAMAGES, HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, SEXUAL HARASSMENT, LOST PENSION BENEFITS AS DAMAGES IN THIS SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASE WERE PROPERLY CALCULATED USING THE TOTAL OFFSET METHOD (THIRD DEPT))/PENSION BENEFITS, LOSS OF  (DAMAGES, HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, SEXUAL HARASSMENT, LOST PENSION BENEFITS AS DAMAGES IN THIS SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASE WERE PROPERLY CALCULATED USING THE TOTAL OFFSET METHOD (THIRD DEPT))

,

COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE WHICH EFFECTIVELY PRECLUDED DEFENDANT SURGEON FROM PRACTICING MEDICINE IN METROPOLITAN NEW YORK WAS INVALIDATED, ARGUMENT FOR PARTIAL ENFORCEMENT REJECTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined a covenant not to compete which prohibited defendant surgeon from practicing within a ten-mile radius of his former employer was unreasonable and was properly invalidated. The argument that the covenant should be partially enforced was rejected as well:

“Agreements restricting an individual’s right to work or compete are not favored and thus are strictly construed” … ” [A] restrictive covenant will only be subject to specific enforcement to the extent that it is reasonable in time and area, necessary to protect the employer’s legitimate interests, not harmful to the general public and not unreasonably burdensome to the employee'” … . The determination of whether a restrictive covenant is reasonable involves the application of a three-pronged test. “A restraint is reasonable only if it: (1) is no greater than is required for the protection of the legitimate interest of the employer, (2) does not impose undue hardship on the employee, and (3) is not injurious to the public” … . The “violation of any prong renders the covenant invalid” … . “With agreements not to compete between professionals . . . [courts] have given greater weight to the interests of the employer in restricting competition within a confined geographical area” … . That said, “the application of the test of reasonableness of employee restrictive covenants focuses on the particular facts and circumstances giving context to the agreement” … . “The rationale for the differential application of the common-law rule of reasonableness . . . was that professionals are deemed to provide unique or extraordinary'” services … .

Here, the defendants made a prima facie showing that the provision of the covenant prohibiting Andrade for a period of two years from practicing surgery of any kind, within a 10-mile radius of all of the plaintiff’s offices and affiliated hospitals, even those at which he had never worked, was geographically unreasonable, because it effectively barred him from performing surgery, his chosen field of medicine, in the New York metropolitan area … . …

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court did not err in declining to modify the covenant rather than invalidating it. The determination of whether an overly broad restrictive covenant should be enforced to the extent necessary to protect an employer’s legitimate interest involves “a case specific analysis, focusing on the conduct of the employer in imposing the terms of the agreement” … . Partial enforcement may be justified if an employer demonstrates, in addition to having a legitimate business interest, “an absence of overreaching, coercive use of dominant bargaining power, or other anti-competitive misconduct” … . “Factors weighing against partial enforcement are the imposition of the covenant in connection with hiring or continued employment—as opposed to, for example, imposition in connection with a promotion to a position of responsibility and trust—the existence of coercion or a general plan of the employer to forestall competition, and the employer’s knowledge that the covenant was overly broad”… . Long Is. Minimally Invasive Surgery, P.C. v St. John’s Episcopal Hosp., 2018 NY Slip Op 05674, Second Dept 8-8-18

EMPLOYMENT LAW (COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE WHICH EFFECTIVELY PRECLUDED DEFENDANT SURGEON FROM PRACTICING MEDICINE IN METROPOLITAN NEW YORK WAS INVALIDATED, ARGUMENT FOR PARTIAL ENFORCEMENT REJECTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE WHICH EFFECTIVELY PRECLUDED DEFENDANT SURGEON FROM PRACTICING MEDICINE IN METROPOLITAN NEW YORK WAS INVALIDATED, ARGUMENT FOR PARTIAL ENFORCEMENT REJECTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE (EMPLOYMENT LAW, COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE WHICH EFFECTIVELY PRECLUDED DEFENDANT SURGEON FROM PRACTICING MEDICINE IN METROPOLITAN NEW YORK WAS INVALIDATED, ARGUMENT FOR PARTIAL ENFORCEMENT REJECTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, WHICH WAS DEEMED BROADER IN SCOPE THAN THE STATE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HER SUPERVISOR SQUEEZED HER THIGH AND HER REJECTION OF THAT ADVANCE RESULTED IN HER BEING TREATED LESS WELL THAN OTHER EMPLOYEES THEREAFTER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Moulton, over an extensive two-justice dissenting opinion, determined plaintiff had stated a cause of action for gender discrimination under the NYC Human Rights Law, which was deemed broader in scope than the state Human Rights Law. Plaintiff alleged she was treated less well than other employees after she rejected a sexual advance by her supervisor (Cirullo). The supervisor allegedly squeezed plaintiff’s thigh when he sat next to her:

In 2005, the City Council passed the Local Civil Rights Restoration Act of 2005 ,,, , finding that the provisions of the City Human Rights Law had been “construed too narrowly to ensure protection of the civil rights of all persons covered by the law.” The Restoration Act revised the City Human Rights Law … to state: “The provisions of this title shall be construed liberally for the accomplishment of the uniquely broad and remedial purposes thereof, regardless of whether federal or New York State civil and human rights laws, including those laws with provisions worded comparably to provisions of this title, have been so construed.” * * *

… [T]o establish a gender discrimination claim under the City Human Rights Law, a plaintiff need only demonstrate “by a preponderance of the evidence that she has been treated less well than other employees because of her gender” … . … [F]ederal and state law, limiting actionable sexual harassment to “severe or pervasive” conduct, [is] not appropriate for the broader and more remedial City Human Rights Law … . ,,, [W]e recognize[] an affirmative defense whereby defendants can avoid liability if the conduct amounted to nothing more than what a reasonable victim of discrimination would consider “petty slights and trivial inconveniences” … . * * *

The jury must decide whether Cirullo made a sexual overture, and whether Cirullo created a hostile work environment because Suri rebuffed that overture … . Sexual advances are not always made explicitly. The absence of evidence of a supervisor’s direct pressure for sexual favors as a condition of employment does not negate indirect pressure or doom the claim … . Suri v Grey Global Group, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 05627, First Dept 8-2-18

EMPLOYMENT LAW (GENDER DISCRIMINATION, NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, WHICH WAS DEEMED BROADER IN SCOPE THAN THE STATE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HER SUPERVISOR SQUEEZED HER THIGH AND HER REJECTION OF THAT ADVANCE RESULTED IN HER BEING TREATED LESS WELL THAN OTHER EMPLOYEES THEREAFTER (FIRST DEPT))/HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, GENDER DISCRIMINATION, NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, WHICH WAS DEEMED BROADER IN SCOPE THAN THE STATE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HER SUPERVISOR SQUEEZED HER THIGH AND HER REJECTION OF THAT ADVANCE RESULTED IN HER BEING TREATED LESS WELL THAN OTHER EMPLOYEES THEREAFTER (FIRST DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (GENDER DISCRIMINATION, EMPLOYMENT LAW, NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, WHICH WAS DEEMED BROADER IN SCOPE THAN THE STATE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HER SUPERVISOR SQUEEZED HER THIGH AND HER REJECTION OF THAT ADVANCE RESULTED IN HER BEING TREATED LESS WELL THAN OTHER EMPLOYEES THEREAFTER (FIRST DEPT))/GENDER DISCRIMINATION (NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, WHICH WAS DEEMED BROADER IN SCOPE THAN THE STATE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HER SUPERVISOR SQUEEZED HER THIGH AND HER REJECTION OF THAT ADVANCE RESULTED IN HER BEING TREATED LESS WELL THAN OTHER EMPLOYEES THEREAFTER (FIRST DEPT))/SEXUAL ADVANCES (EMPLOYMENT LAW, NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, WHICH WAS DEEMED BROADER IN SCOPE THAN THE STATE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HER SUPERVISOR SQUEEZED HER THIGH AND HER REJECTION OF THAT ADVANCE RESULTED IN HER BEING TREATED LESS WELL THAN OTHER EMPLOYEES THEREAFTER (FIRST DEPT))

, , ,

COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION WHERE THE FACTS ALLEGED WERE THE SAME AS IN A FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION WHICH WAS DISMISSED, PRE-ANSWER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (c) PROPERLY DENIED, BREACH OF CONTRACT AND QUANTUM MERUIT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY PLED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s employment discrimination action was properly dismissed on collateral estoppel grounds. Plaintiff had brought a discrimination action in federal court which was dismissed. The Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) causes of action in state court, alleging the same facts as alleged in the federal case, were therefore properly dismissed. Defendants were not entitled to dismissal of the breach of contract and quantum meruit causes of action. Because the defendants submitted evidence in support of their motion to dismiss , the motion court treated it as a motion for summary judgment (before issue was joined). The court noted that defendants did not make out a prima facie case in their motion papers. Therefore the sufficiency of plaintiff’s papers need not be considered. The court also explained that where there is a question about the existence of a contract, a quantum meruit cause of action may be brought and the plaintiff is not required to elect his or her remedies:

Here, the factual determinations made by the federal courts with regard to the causes of action alleging discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment under Title VII were determinative of the plaintiff’s identical claims asserted in this action pursuant to NYCHRL

CPLR 3211(c) provides, “[u]pon the hearing of a motion made under subdivision (a) or (b), either party may submit any evidence that could properly be considered on a motion for summary judgment. Whether or not issue has been joined, the court, after adequate notice to the parties, may treat the motion as a motion for summary judgment.” Although the path the defendants took in moving pursuant to CPLR 3211(c) was procedurally questionable, they charted their own course in this instance. There was no need to give the plaintiff an opportunity to file additional papers because the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by failing to tender sufficient evidence to eliminate any issues of fact with respect to those causes of action. Accordingly, the defendants were properly denied summary judgment, without regard to the sufficiency of the opposition papers … . Karimian v Time Equities, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 05583, Second Dept 8-1-18

EMPLOYMENT LAW (COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION WHERE THE FACTS ALLEGED WERE THE SAME AS IN A FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION WHICH WAS DISMISSED, PRE-ANSWER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (c) PROPERLY DENIED, BREACH OF CONTRACT AND QUANTUM MERUIT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY PLED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION WHERE THE FACTS ALLEGED WERE THE SAME AS IN A FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION WHICH WAS DISMISSED, PRE-ANSWER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (c) PROPERLY DENIED, BREACH OF CONTRACT AND QUANTUM MERUIT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY PLED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3211 (C) (COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION WHERE THE FACTS ALLEGED WERE THE SAME AS IN A FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION WHICH WAS DISMISSED, PRE-ANSWER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (c) PROPERLY DENIED, BREACH OF CONTRACT AND QUANTUM MERUIT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY PLED (SECOND DEPT))/HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION WHERE THE FACTS ALLEGED WERE THE SAME AS IN A FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION WHICH WAS DISMISSED, PRE-ANSWER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (c) PROPERLY DENIED, BREACH OF CONTRACT AND QUANTUM MERUIT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY PLED (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION WHERE THE FACTS ALLEGED WERE THE SAME AS IN A FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION WHICH WAS DISMISSED, PRE-ANSWER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (c) PROPERLY DENIED, BREACH OF CONTRACT AND QUANTUM MERUIT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY PLED (SECOND DEPT))/QUANTUM MERUIT (COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION WHERE THE FACTS ALLEGED WERE THE SAME AS IN A FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION WHICH WAS DISMISSED, PRE-ANSWER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (c) PROPERLY DENIED, BREACH OF CONTRACT AND QUANTUM MERUIT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY PLED (SECOND DEPT))

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