You are here: / Employment Law

AGE DISCRIMINATION LAWSUIT PROPERLY DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff teacher’s age discrimination suit was properly dismissed for failure to state a cause of action:

​

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (hereinafter the ADEA) provides, in relevant part: “It shall be unlawful for an employer . . . to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to [her] compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s age” … . “To establish a prima facie case of age discrimination under the ADEA, a claimant must demonstrate that: 1) [she] was within the protected age group; 2) [she] was qualified for the position; 3) [she] was subject to an adverse employment action; and 4) the adverse action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination'” … .

​

… [T]he general allegation in the amended complaint that the plaintiff and two other “older” teachers had been “continuously harassed” by the principal and the assistant principal are vague and conclusory … . Furthermore, the specific instances of discrimination described in the amended complaint, which allegedly occurred over a period of more than three years, were isolated and episodic. For instance, the amended complaint alleged that the plaintiff “was required to teach a class that she was not qualified to teach,” that the principal left her name off an art fair newsletter, that the assistant principal gave the plaintiff “a useless laptop to complete a survey,” and that on two separate occasions the principal slammed her hand on the table and screamed at her. These occurrences were “not severe or pervasive enough to create an objectively hostile or abusive work environment” … . Murphy v Department of Educ. of the City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 07609, Second Dept 11-1-17

 

EMPLOYMENT LAW (AGE DISCRIMINATION LAWSUIT PROPERLY DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/AGE DISCRIMINATION (AGE DISCRIMINATION LAWSUIT PROPERLY DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ACT  (AGE DISCRIMINATION LAWSUIT PROPERLY DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT))

,

CHEERLEADERS FOR BUFFALO BILLS PROPERLY CERTIFIED AS A CLASS ALLEGING LABOR LAW VIOLATIONS AND FRAUD, EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN REPLY PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED, MULTIPLE LAW FIRMS PROPERLY CERTIFIED AS CLASS COUNSEL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined members of the Buffalo Jills, cheerleaders for the Buffalo Bills football team, were properly certified as a class to bring an action alleging Labor Law violations (failure to compensate) and fraud. The Fourth Department noted that evidence submitted in the reply papers was properly considered because the defendants had the opportunity to address the evidence and further noted Supreme Court properly certified three law firms as class counsel:

​

Class action is appropriate only if all five of the requirements are met … , and the burden of establishing those requirements is on the party seeking certification … . The first prerequisite is that the class must be so numerous that joinder of all of its members is impracticable (see CPLR 901 [a] [1]). …

The second prerequisite is that there are common questions of law or fact that predominate over questions affecting only individual members (see CPLR 901 [a] [2]). …

The third prerequisite is that the class representatives’ claims are typical of the claims of the class (see CPLR 901 [a] [3]). …

​

The fourth prerequisite is that the class representatives will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class (see CPLR 901 [a] [4]). …

The fifth prerequisite is that class action is the superior method to fairly and efficiently adjudicate the controversy (see CPLR 901 [a] [5]).  …

… Once the section 901 (a) prerequisites have been met, a court must consider the class members’ interest in prosecuting individual actions; the impracticality or inefficiency of prosecuting or defending separate actions; the extent and nature of any separate action already pending; the desirability of the forum; and the difficulties likely to be encountered in managing a class action (see CPLR 902…) …

… [T]he court properly certified three law firms as class counsel. It is within the court’s discretion to allow representation by more than one counsel … . Ferrari v The Natl. Football League, 2017 NY Slip Op 06755, Fourth Dept 9-29-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (CHEERLEADERS FOR BUFFALO BILLS PROPERLY CERTIFIED AS A CLASS ALLEGING LABOR LAW VIOLATIONS AND FRAUD, EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN REPLY PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED, THREE LAW FIRMS PROPERLY CERTIFIED AS CLASS COUNSEL (FOURTH DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (CHEERLEADERS FOR BUFFALO BILLS PROPERLY CERTIFIED AS A CLASS ALLEGING LABOR LAW VIOLATIONS AND FRAUD, EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN REPLY PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED, THREE LAW FIRMS PROPERLY CERTIFIED AS CLASS COUNSEL (FOURTH DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CLASS ACTION,  CHEERLEADERS FOR BUFFALO BILLS PROPERLY CERTIFIED AS A CLASS ALLEGING LABOR LAW VIOLATIONS AND FRAUD, EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN REPLY PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED, THREE LAW FIRMS PROPERLY CERTIFIED AS CLASS COUNSEL (FOURTH DEPT))/REPLY PAPERS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN REPLY PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED (FOURTH DEPT))/CLASS ACTIONS (EMPLOYMENT LAW, (CHEERLEADERS FOR BUFFALO BILLS PROPERLY CERTIFIED AS A CLASS ALLEGING LABOR LAW VIOLATIONS AND FRAUD, THREE LAW FIRMS PROPERLY CERTIFIED AS CLASS COUNSEL (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE DETERMINED THE CONTESTED PROMOTION OF A SHERIFF’S DISPATCHER WAS ARBITRABLE UNDER THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petitioner-county’s motion to permanently stay arbitration should not have been granted. The respondent-union filed a grievance on behalf of a part-time sheriff’s dispatcher when another dispatcher was made full-time:

​

The Court of Appeals has set forth a two-pronged test to determine “whether a grievance is arbitrable” (Matter of City of Johnstown [Johnstown Police Benevolent Assn.], 99 NY2d 273, 278 [Johnstown] …). In the first prong of the test, known as “the may-they-arbitrate’ prong,” we “ask whether there is any statutory, constitutional or public policy prohibition against arbitration of the grievance” … . If we conclude that arbitration is not prohibited, we move to the second prong, known as “the did-they-agree-to-arbitrate’ prong,” in which we “examine the CBA to determine if the parties have agreed to arbitrate the dispute at issue” … .

Here, petitioner does not contend that arbitration of [the dispatcher’s] grievance is prohibited, and we therefore are concerned only with the second prong of the Johnstown test. With respect to that issue, “[i]t is well settled that, in deciding an application to stay or compel arbitration under CPLR 7503, the court is concerned only with the threshold determination of arbitrability, and not with the merits of the underlying claim”… . Furthermore, “[w]here, as here, there is a broad arbitration clause and a reasonable relationship’ between the subject matter of the dispute and the general subject matter of the parties’ [CBA], the court should rule the matter arbitrable, and the arbitrator will then make a more exacting interpretation of the precise scope of the substantive provisions of the [CBA], and whether the subject matter of the dispute fits within them’ ” … . Matter of Lewis County (CSEA Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Lewis County Sheriff’s Empls. Unit #7250-03, Lewis County Local 825), 2017 NY Slip Op 06743, Fourth Dept 9-29-17

 

ARBITRATION (COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE DETERMINED THE CONTESTED PROMOTION OF A SHERIFF’S DISPATCHER WAS ARBITRABLE UNDER THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (FOURTH DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE DETERMINED THE CONTESTED PROMOTION OF A SHERIFF’S DISPATCHER WAS ARBITRABLE UNDER THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (FOURTH DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW  (COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE DETERMINED THE CONTESTED PROMOTION OF A SHERIFF’S DISPATCHER WAS ARBITRABLE UNDER THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (FOURTH DEPT))/COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (ARBITRATION, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE DETERMINED THE CONTESTED PROMOTION OF A SHERIFF’S DISPATCHER WAS ARBITRABLE UNDER THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (FOURTH DEPT))/UNIONS (ARBITRATION, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE DETERMINED THE CONTESTED PROMOTION OF A SHERIFF’S DISPATCHER WAS ARBITRABLE UNDER THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE DETERMINED THE PROPER PAY FOR A TEACHER WAS ARBITRABLE UNDER THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a matter concerning the proper pay for a teacher was arbitrable under the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The school districts (petitioner’s) motion to permanently stay arbitration should not have been granted:

​

… [R]espondent (union) filed a grievance on behalf of one of its members, a teacher, alleging that petitioner had violated the provisions of the CBA that require petitioner to maintain salary schedules in an ethical manner, to adjust teacher salaries based on graduate credits earned, and to abide by the salary schedules. …

​

It is well settled that courts must apply a two-part test to determine whether a matter is subject to arbitration under a CBA … . “First, the court must determine whether there is any statutory, constitutional or public policy prohibition against arbitration of the grievance’ ” … . If there is no such prohibition, the court must examine the CBA to determine “whether the parties in fact agreed to arbitrate the particular dispute” … . …

… [T]he arbitration of disputes concerning public school teachers’ salaries is not proscribed by law or public policy, and thus only the second prong is at issue … .

… The dispute concerns whether petitioner placed the teacher at the correct step of the salary schedule and paid her properly based on the graduate credits that she earned, and thus it is reasonably related to the general subject matter of the CBA …  Issues concerning whether the CBA supports a grievance arising from the initial placement of a new employee on the salary schedule, as opposed to the proper payment of an existing employee, “are matters involving the scope of the substantive [CBA] provisions and, as such, are for the arbitrator” to resolve … . … [T]he clause in the CBA stating that an arbitrator has “no power to alter, add to, or detract from” the CBA does not render the dispute nonarbitrable … . Matter of Thousand Is. Cent. Sch. Dist. v Thousand Is. Educ. Assn., 2017 NY Slip Op 06759, Fourth Dept 9-29-17

ARBITRATION (EMPLOYMENT LAW, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE DETERMINED THE PROPER PAY FOR A TEACHER WAS ARBITRABLE UNDER THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (FOURTH DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (TEACHERS, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE DETERMINED THE PROPER PAY FOR A TEACHER WAS ARBITRABLE UNDER THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (FOURTH DEPT))/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW  (TEACHERS, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE DETERMINED THE PROPER PAY FOR A TEACHER WAS ARBITRABLE UNDER THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (FOURTH DEPT))/TEACHERS (EMPLOYMENT LAW, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE DETERMINED THE PROPER PAY FOR A TEACHER WAS ARBITRABLE UNDER THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (FOURTH DEPT))/UNIONS (TEACHERS, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE DETERMINED THE PROPER PAY FOR A TEACHER WAS ARBITRABLE UNDER THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (FOURTH DEPT))/COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (TEACHERS, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE DETERMINED THE PROPER PAY FOR A TEACHER WAS ARBITRABLE UNDER THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (FOURTH DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT BICYCLIST WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN HE STRUCK AND KILLED PLAINTIFF, EMPLOYER NOT VICARIOUSLY OR DIRECTLY LIABLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant-bicyclist’s (Cook’s) employer (AGI) was not vicariously liable for the bicyclist’s actions. Cook was riding his own bicycle on his own time when he struck and killed plaintiff. Cook worked as a bicycling coach for AGI. The court also found that the negligent hiring and retention cause of action was properly dismissed:

​

The motion court correctly determined that AGI could not be held vicariously liable for Cook’s alleged negligence, as Cook was acting outside the scope of his employment. At the time of the accident, Cook was engaged in a weekend bicycle ride, in a public park, using a bicycle that he purchased and equipped, was alone and was not coaching anyone, and was not acting in furtherance of any duties owed to AGI … .

Cook’s unsupported belief, as set forth in an affirmative defense, that his bicycle riding had a work component to it, and his unsworn Response to the Notice to Admit (see CPLR 3123[a]), which improperly sought admissions as to employment status, a contested issue central to the action … , do not create triable issues of fact as to whether Cook was acting in the scope of employment … . …[T]here is no indication that AGI was exercising any control over Cook at the time of the accident … .

​

The motion court correctly dismissed plaintiff’s direct negligence claim against AGI. There is no evidence that AGI knew or should have known of Cook’s alleged propensity to dangerously ride his bicycle in Central Park, an element necessary to support the claim for negligent hiring and retention … , and plaintiff’s conclusory allegations of deficient training are insufficient to defeat summary judgment … . Fein v Cook, 2017 NY Slip Op 06603, First Dept 9-26-17

​

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT BICYCLIST WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN HE STRUCK AND KILLED PLAINTIFF, EMPLOYER NOT VICARIOUSLY OR DIRECTLY LIABLE (FIRST DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (VICARIOUS LIABILITY, DEFENDANT BICYCLIST WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN HE STRUCK AND KILLED PLAINTIFF, EMPLOYER NOT VICARIOUSLY OR DIRECTLY LIABLE (FIRST DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFF’S AGE DISCRIMINATION AND BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in an extensive opinion by Justice Friedman, determined plaintiff’s age discrimination and breach of contract causes of action should be dismissed. Plaintiff’s position at a medical school was eliminated as part of a phasing out of her department and her age was not demonstrated to be a factor in the decision-making process. In addition, the breach of contract cause of action was based on a provision in the faculty handbook which did not apply to plaintiff:

​

In this action for age discrimination in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) … and for breach of contract, plaintiff, a former member of the radiology department of defendant medical school and hospital, challenges defendant’s decision not to renew her employment at the expiration of the term of her last appointment. Although Supreme Court assumed (as do we) that plaintiff carried her “de minimis” burden of establishing a prima facie case of age discrimination … , the court correctly determined that plaintiff, in response to defendant’s evidence of legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the challenged employment action, failed to present any evidence raising a triable issue as to whether bias against employees of her age played a role in that decision … .

… [D]efendant established that the non-specialized section of the radiology department in which plaintiff worked, which produced no research, was phased out as part of a restructuring of the department, at a time of financial constraint, to achieve greater focus on the specialized, research-producing sections of the department. Defendant further established that, as part of this restructuring, it retained three physicians from plaintiff’s section, each of whom was of approximately the same age as plaintiff (60), and reassigned them to specialized departments. Plaintiff, however, was reasonably deemed to lack the specialized expertise and the proclivity for research that defendant deemed necessary to maintain its status as a top-tier academic radiology department. Not only did plaintiff fail to present any evidence casting doubt on this explanation, she failed to present any evidence, either direct or circumstantial, suggesting that bias against employees of her age was even a partial motive for the ending of her employment. Hamburg v New York Univ. Sch. of Medicine, 2017 NY Slip Op 06635, First Dept 9-26-17

 

EMPLOYMENT LAW (PLAINTIFF’S AGE DISCRIMINATION AND BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (PLAINTIFF’S AGE DISCRIMINATION AND BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/AGE DISCRIMINATION (PLAINTIFF’S AGE DISCRIMINATION AND BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))

,

EMAILS DID NOT EXPLICITLY WAIVE THE INITIAL AGREEMENT THAT THE PARTIES WOULD NOT BE BOUND UNTIL A FORMAL AGREEMENT WAS EXECUTED, NO CONTRACT WAS CREATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the complaint in this employment contract action was properly dismissed. The term sheet relied upon by plaintiff included a clause indicating neither party would be bound until a more formal agreement was executed. Subsequent emails including the phrase “firm and binding” did not waive the formal agreement required by the term sheet:

​

Plaintiff’s allegations that his agent requested that any offer be “firm and binding,” that defendant’s agent acknowledged this request, that internal communications between defendant and its agents reveal an intention to make a firm offer, that the cover email transmitting the term sheet labeled the offer “firm and binding,” and that defendant later offered a fee to “kill” the contract are not sufficient to negate or demonstrate a waiver of the provision that the parties would not be bound until they executed a formal written agreement … .Morever, waiver of a contractual provision “should not be lightly presumed,” “must be unmistakably manifested, and is not to be inferred from a doubtful or equivocal act” … . Plaintiff’s agent’s demand for a firm offer and defendant’s agent’s acknowledgment of this request, before consulting with her client, prove nothing about what was ultimately agreed. Nor do defendant and its agents’ internal communications preceding the offer, to which plaintiff was not privy, prove what was ultimately agreed. Keitel v E*TRADE Fin. Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 06624, First Dept 9-26-17

CONTRACT LAW (EMAILS DID NOT EXPLICITLY WAIVE THE INITIAL AGREEMENT THAT THE PARTIES WOULD NOT BE BOUND UNTIL A FORMAL AGREEMENT WAS EXECUTED, NO CONTRACT WAS CREATED (FIRST DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (CONTRACT LAW, EMAILS DID NOT EXPLICITLY WAIVE THE INITIAL AGREEMENT THAT THE PARTIES WOULD NOT BE BOUND UNTIL A FORMAL AGREEMENT WAS EXECUTED, NO CONTRACT WAS CREATED (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

PLAINTIFF HOME HEALTH CARE WORKERS PROPERLY CERTIFIED TO BRING CLASS ACTION SUIT ALLEGING INADEQUATE PAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the plaintiff home health care workers were properly certified to bring a class action suit alleging inadequate pay in violation of the minimum wage requirements of the Labor Law. The plaintiffs worked at clients’ residences in 24-hour shifts. They were paid an hourly rate for the 12 daytime hours of their 24-hour shifts and a flat rate for the 12 nighttime hours. The plaintiffs argue they were entitled to the minimum wage for each hour of their 24-hour shifts:

​

The plaintiffs were required to be at the clients’ residences and were also required to perform services there if called upon to do so. To interpret that regulation to mean that the plaintiffs were not, during those nighttime hours, “required to be available for work” simply because it turned out that they were not called upon to perform services is contrary to the plain meaning of “available” … . …[T]o the extent that the members of the proposed class were not “residential” employees who “live[d] on the premises of the employer,” they were entitled to be paid the minimum wage for all 24 hours of their shifts, regardless of whether they were afforded opportunities for sleep and meals … . …

​

… [T]he plaintiffs established the existence of the five prerequisites to class certification … , and none of the factors listed in CPLR 902 warranted a denial of the motion … . Andryeyeva v New York Health Care, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 06421, Second Dept 9-13-17

​

​

Similar issues and result in Moreno v Future Care Health Servs., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 06439, Second Dept 9-13-17

 

EMPLOYMENT LAW (PLAINTIFF HOME HEALTH CARE WORKERS PROPERLY CERTIFIED TO BRING CLASS ACTION SUIT ALLEGING INADEQUATE PAY (SECOND DEPT))/LABOR LAW (PLAINTIFF HOME HEALTH CARE WORKERS PROPERLY CERTIFIED TO BRING CLASS ACTION SUIT ALLEGING INADEQUATE PAY (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (PLAINTIFF HOME HEALTH CARE WORKERS PROPERLY CERTIFIED TO BRING CLASS ACTION SUIT ALLEGING INADEQUATE PAY (SECOND DEPT))/CLASS ACTIONS (PLAINTIFF HOME HEALTH CARE WORKERS PROPERLY CERTIFIED TO BRING CLASS ACTION SUIT ALLEGING INADEQUATE PAY (SECOND DEPT))/HOME HEALTH CARE WORKERS (EMPLOYMENT LAW, PLAINTIFF HOME HEALTH CARE WORKERS PROPERLY CERTIFIED TO BRING CLASS ACTION SUIT ALLEGING INADEQUATE PAY (SECOND DEPT))/MINIMUM WAGE (PLAINTIFF HOME HEALTH CARE WORKERS PROPERLY CERTIFIED TO BRING CLASS ACTION SUIT ALLEGING INADEQUATE PAY (SECOND DEPT))

,

FOR CAUSE FORFEITURE TERM OF DEFERRED COMPENSATION AGREEMENT NOT ELIMINATED BY A SUBSEQUENT FORM EXTENDING THE DUE DATE OF THE DEFERRED COMPENSATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant-employees’ motions for summary judgment were properly denied. Defendants were subject to deferred compensation agreements (DCA’s) which called for the “for cause” forfeiture of the deferred compensation. Here it was alleged the defendants violated a non-solicitation, non-competition clause and therefore forfeited the deferred compensation. The defendants argued a subsequent document, an “election form” which extended the date on which the deferred compensation was due and payable, and which did not include a “for cause” forfeiture provision, should control. The courts disagreed:

… [T]he Election Forms, by their express language, provide that any deferral of payment of deferred compensation is to be made “in accordance with the terms of the Deferred Compensation Agreement . . . .” The DCAs, as noted, clearly provide in paragraph 4 that deferred compensation is forfeited if the employee is terminated for cause, including violation of non-solicitation or noncompetition covenants. There is no mention in the Election Forms of any intent to override this provision.

Additionally, paragraph 5 of the DCAs specifically provides that their terms “may not be altered, modified, or amended except by written instrument signed by the parties hereto.” At a minimum, it is commercially reasonable to view the Election Forms, on their face, to be informal human resources administrative forms. In any case, they are not “written instrument[s] signed by the parties [to the DCAs],” as they lack any signature of plaintiffs, as required by paragraph 5 in order to amend the DCAs. Perella Weinberg Partners LLC v Kramer,2017 NY Slip Op 06341, First Dept 8-29-17

CONTRACT LAW (FOR CAUSE FORFEITURE TERM OF DEFERRED COMPENSATION AGREEMENT NOT ELIMINATED BY A SUBSEQUENT FORM EXTENDING THE DUE DATE OF THE DEFERRED COMPENSATION (FIRST DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (CONTRACT LAW, FOR CAUSE FORFEITURE TERM OF DEFERRED COMPENSATION AGREEMENT NOT ELIMINATED BY A SUBSEQUENT FORM EXTENDING THE DUE DATE OF THE DEFERRED COMPENSATION (FIRST DEPT))/DEFERRED COMPENSATION AGREEMENT (FOR CAUSE FORFEITURE TERM OF DEFERRED COMPENSATION AGREEMENT NOT ELIMINATED BY A SUBSEQUENT FORM EXTENDING THE DUE DATE OF THE DEFERRED COMPENSATION (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

SEX AND DISABILITY EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT PROPERLY AMENDED UNDER THE RELATION BACK STATUTE WITH OTHERWISE UNTIMELY CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGING SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, over an extensive two-justice dissent, determined the relation-back statute (CPLR 203 (f)) allowed the amendment of a sex-and-disability-discrimination complaint to allege otherwise untimely employment discrimination causes of action based upon plaintiff’s sexual orientation. The original sex-and-disability-discrimination complaint did not mention plaintiff was a lesbian and had suffered discrimination because of her sexual orientation. The First Department held that the wording of the relation-back statute, which refers to “transactions” or “occurrences,” not “claims,” allowed the amendment in the absence of prejudice:

All of plaintiff’s claims are based on the same occurrences — namely the underlying employment actions taken against her – and the original complaint put defendants on notice of those occurrences. To be sure, plaintiff’s original complaint did not allege the specific facts that she is a lesbian, that defendants were aware of her sexual orientation, that defendants discriminated against her on that basis, or that another lesbian colleague was demoted for supporting her internal dispute … . Nevertheless, the motion court correctly determined that the new claims are based on “the same subject matter alleged in the original complaint.” Defendants need not have been put on notice of every factual allegation on which the subsequent claims depend, because the original complaint put them on notice of the occurrences that underlie those claims … .

Viewing “transactions [or] occurrences” through this broad lens for the purposes of relation back under CPLR 203(f) is especially important in the context of anti-discrimination actions – particularly those actions brought under the City HRL [Human Rights Law] – in which it is frequently difficult for plaintiffs to articulate their employers’ motivations for treating them less well than other employees … . O’Halloran v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 2017 NY Slip Op 06237, First Dept 8-22-17

 

EMPLOYMENT LAW (HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, SEX AND DISABILITY EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT PROPERLY AMENDED UNDER THE RELATION BACK STATUTE WITH OTHERWISE UNTIMELY CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGING SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION (FIRST DEPT))/HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (GENDER AND SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION, SEX AND DISABILITY EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT PROPERLY AMENDED UNDER THE RELATION BACK STATUTE WITH OTHERWISE UNTIMELY CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGING SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION (FIRST DEPT))/GENDER DISCRIMINATION  (HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, SEX AND DISABILITY EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT PROPERLY AMENDED UNDER THE RELATION BACK STATUTE WITH OTHERWISE UNTIMELY CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGING SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION (FIRST DEPT))/SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION (HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, SEX AND DISABILITY EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT PROPERLY AMENDED UNDER THE RELATION BACK STATUTE WITH OTHERWISE UNTIMELY CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGING SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION (FIRST DEPT))/SEX DISCRIMINATION (HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, SEX AND DISABILITY EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT PROPERLY AMENDED UNDER THE RELATION BACK STATUTE WITH OTHERWISE UNTIMELY CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGING SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION (FIRST 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