You are here: / Employment Law
, ,

EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS UNDER STATE AND CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY.

The First Department determined plaintiff stated causes of action for employment discrimination and retaliation under both the state and city (NYC) Human Rights Law. The court noted that claims after 2011 were time-barred under the state law, but claims going back to 2007 were timely under the city law, which allows otherwise time-barred claims which are part of a continuing course of conduct:

… [P]laintiff’s claims under the New York State HRL for failure to promote after May 23, 2011 are timely and should not have been dismissed, as plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to meet his pleading burden for purposes of this motion to dismiss … . Plaintiff’s claims for failure to promote under the City HRL were also improperly dismissed because plaintiff has adequately alleged “a single continuing pattern of unlawful conduct [starting from his first promotion rejection in 2007] extending into the [limitations] period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint” … , which permits consideration under the City HRL of all actions relevant to that claim, including those that would otherwise be time-barred … . Moreover, while, as plaintiff concedes, the continuing violations doctrine only applies to his claims of failure to promote under the City HRL … , even under the State HRL, he “is not precluded from using the prior acts as background evidence in support of a timely claim'” … . St. Jean Jeudy v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 06045, 1st Dept 9-15-16

EMPLOYMENT LAW (EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS UNDER STATE AND CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY)/HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS UNDER STATE AND CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY)/DISCRIMINATION (EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS UNDER STATE AND CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY)/

,

COUNTY HAD AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE A WAGE FREEZE TO ADDRESS A FINANCIAL CRISIS.

MUNICIPAL LAW, EMPLOYMENT LAW.

The Second Department, interpreting the Public Authorities Law, determined Nassau County had the authority to impose a wage freeze on county employees to address a financial crisis:

… [W]e find that, contrary to the … petitioners’ contention, the Supreme Court correctly determined that NIFA [Nassau County Interim Finance Authority] was authorized under the NIFA Act to impose the subject wage freezes (see Public Authorities Law § 3669[3]). Public Authorities Law § 3669(3) expressly provides for NIFA’s authority to declare a control period by enacting a resolution finding a fiscal crisis, and upon such finding, order that all increases in salary or wages of county employees be suspended. Control periods may be declared “at any time” (Public Authorities Law § 3669[1]). Matter of Carver v Nassau County Interim Fin. Auth., 2016 NY Slip Op 05995, 2nd Dept 9-14-16

MUNICIPAL LAW (COUNTY HAD AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE A WAGE FREEZE TO ADDRESS A FINANCIAL CRISIS)/EMPLOYMENT LAW (MUNICIPAL LAW, COUNTY HAD AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE A WAGE FREEZE TO ADDRESS A FINANCIAL CRISIS)/WAGE FREEZE (COUNTY HAD AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE A WAGE FREEZE TO ADDRESS A FINANCIAL CRISIS)

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER EMPLOYER VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE OF AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.

The Second Department determined there was a question of fact whether the employer, Vertical, could be held vicariously liable for the actions of an independent contractor, On Guard. On Guard provided security for a parking lot owned by Vertical. Plaintiff was injured when struck by a remote-controlled toy car which was apparently being operated in the parking lot with a security guard’s knowledge:

“Generally, a party who retains an independent contractor, as distinguished from a mere employee or servant, is not liable for the independent contractor’s negligent acts'” … . “One of the exceptions to this general rule is the nondelegable duty exception, which is applicable where the party is under a duty to keep premises safe'” … . In such instances, the party ” is vicariously liable for the fault of the independent contractor because a legal duty is imposed on it which cannot be delegated'” … .

Here, the evidence submitted by the moving defendants raised triable issues of fact regarding whether On Guard was negligent in performing its security duties, and whether the moving defendants were vicariously liable for On Guard’s negligence based on their nondelegable duty to keep the premises safe… . Pesante v Vertical Indus. Dev. Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 05854, 2nd Dept 8-24-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER EMPLOYER VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE OF AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR)/EMPLOYMENT LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER EMPLOYER VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE OF AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR)/INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER EMPLOYER VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE OF AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR)

PROVISIONS OF POLICY MANUAL DID NOT CONSTITUTE ENFORCEABLE OBLIGATIONS.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ summary judgment motion should have been granted. Plaintiff employee’s argued they were entitled to severance pay in accordance a policy manual. Policy manuals which can be amended or withdrawn unilaterally do not obligate the employer unless there is a regular practice and reliance:

Provisions contained in company policy manuals which, like the one in this case, can be amended or withdrawn unilaterally, do not constitute enforceable obligations owing from an employer to its employees absent a showing of a regular practice by the employer to provide the benefits now claimed, the employee’s knowledge of the practice, and his or her reliance upon such practice as evidenced by accepting or continuing employment as a result thereof … . Cohen v National Grid USA, 2016 NY Slip Op 05786, 1st Dept 8-17-16

EMPLOYMENT LAW (PROVISIONS OF POLICY MANUAL DID NOT CONSTITUTE ENFORCEABLE OBLIGATIONS)/POLICY MANUAL (EMPLOYMENT LAW, PROVISIONS OF POLICY MANUAL DID NOT CONSTITUTE ENFORCEABLE OBLIGATIONS)

OSTENSIBLE NON EMPLOYER WAS NOT A JOINT EMPLOYER SUBJECT TO EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION LIABILITY; CRITERIA FOR JOINT EMPLOYER STATUS EXPLAINED.

The First Department determined defendant non employer was not a “joint employer” such that defendant could be liable for employment discrimination under the Human Rights Law. The court explained the “joint employer” criteria:

In determining whether an ostensible non employer is actually a “joint employer” for purposes of employment discrimination claims under the State and City Human Rights Laws (HRLs), numerous Federal District Courts have applied the “immediate control” test … . Under the “immediate control” formulation, a “joint employer relationship may be found to exist where there is sufficient evidence that the defendant had immediate control over the other company’s employees,” and particularly the defendant’s control “over the employee in setting the terms and conditions of the employee’s work.” “Relevant factors” in this exercise “include commonality of hiring, firing, discipline, pay, insurance, records, and supervision.” Of these factors, “the extent of the employer’s right to control the means and manner of the worker’s performance is the most important factor.” If such control is established, other factors “are then of marginal importance” … . Brankov v Hazzard, 2016 NY Slip Op 05778, 1st Dept 8-11-16

EMPLOYMENT LAW (DISCRIMINATION, OSTENSIBLE NON EMPLOYER WAS NOT A JOINT EMPLOYER SUBJECT TO EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION LIABILITY; CRITERIA FOR JOINT EMPLOYER STATUS EXPLAINED)/JOINT RMPLOYER (EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, OSTENSIBLE NON EMPLOYER WAS NOT A JOINT EMPLOYER SUBJECT TO EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION LIABILITY; CRITERIA FOR JOINT EMPLOYER STATUS EXPLAINED)/HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (DISCRIMINATION, OSTENSIBLE NON EMPLOYER WAS NOT A JOINT EMPLOYER SUBJECT TO EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION LIABILITY; CRITERIA FOR JOINT EMPLOYER STATUS EXPLAINED)

,

NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR RETALIATORY TERMINATION CLAIM PURSUANT TO CIVIL SERVICES LAW 75-b.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined (1) a retaliatory termination claim pursuant to Civil Services Law Section 75-b seeking only monetary damages is not subject to the notice of claim requirement of General Municipal Law Sections 50-e and 50-i; and (2), even if a notice of claim were required, the notice was adequate despite the failure to specifically mention a violation Civil Services Law Section 75-b:

… [W]e now find that a notice of claim is not required for a Civil Service Law § 75-b claim. As with the Human Rights Law claims that were the subject of Margerum, Civil Service Law § 75-b claims are not tort actions under 50-e and are not personal injury, wrongful death, or damage to personal property claims under 50-i, and there is no reason to encumber the filing of a retaliatory termination claim. * * *

Even if [a notice of claim] was required, the notice of claim filed by plaintiff was sufficient to allow the City to investigate his Civil Service Law § 75-b claim, even though it did not cite the section. Castro v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 05615, 1st Dept 7-21-16

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR RETALIATORY TERMINATION CLAIM PURSUANT TO CIVIL SERVICES LAW 75-b)/EMPLOYMENT LAW (MUNICIPAL LAW, NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR RETALIATORY TERMINATION CLAIM PURSUANT TO CIVIL SERVICES LAW 75-b)/RETALIATORY TERMINATION (MUNICIPAL LAW, NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR RETALIATORY TERMINATION CLAIM PURSUANT TO CIVIL SERVICES LAW 75-b)

, ,

NEGLIGENT RETENTION CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED.

The Fourth Department, over an extensive dissent, determined plaintiffs’ negligent hiring/retention cause of action against the city and city police department was properly dismissed. The action stemmed from incidents of sexual abuse by a police officer (O’Shei). It was alleged the officer should not have been retained after suffering brain injury:

Plaintiffs contend that the City defendants failed to do an appropriate evaluation of O’Shei’s neuropsychological status after the second motor vehicle accident. Recovery on a negligent retention theory “requires a showing that the employer was on notice of the relevant tortious propensit[y] of the wrongdoing employee” … , i.e., “that the employer knew or should have known of the employee’s propensity for the conduct which caused the injury” … . Thus, contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, the City defendants were under no common-law duty to institute specific procedures for supervising or retaining O’Shei inasmuch as they did not know of facts that would lead a reasonably prudent person to investigate the employee … .

* * * …[T]his is a retention case, and it is well settled that the common-law duty for retention does not require as high a degree of care as does hiring … . Pater v City of Buffalo, 2016 NY Slip Op 05462, 4th Dept 7-8-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (EMPLOYMENT LAW, NEGLIGENT RETENTION CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED)/EMPLOYMENT LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, NEGLIGENT RETENTION CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED)/MUNICIPAL LAW (POLICE OFFICERS, NEGLIGENT RETENTION CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED)/NEGLIGENT RETENTION (EMPLOYMENT LAW, NEGLIGENT RETENTION CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED)

, ,

ARBITRATOR EXCEEDED HIS POWERS BY REFUSING TO REVIEW THE ENTIRE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AWARD PROPERLY VACATED.

The Fourth Department, affirming Supreme Court, determined the arbitrator exceeded his powers vacation of the award was therefore proper. The arbitration concerned the termination of a deputy sheriff for driving while intoxicated and related charges. The arbitrator refused to consider some of the evidence (finding it inadmissible) and reinstated the deputy:

“Under CPLR 7511 (b) an arbitration award must be vacated if, as relevant here, a party’s rights were impaired by an arbitrator who exceeded his power or so imperfectly executed it that a final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made’ ” … . “It is well settled that a court may vacate an arbitration award only if it violates a strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator’s power” … . “Outside of these narrowly circumscribed exceptions, courts lack authority to review arbitral decisions, even where an arbitrator has made an error of law or fact’ ” … .

Here, we conclude that the arbitrator clearly exceeded his authority as provided by the CBA [collective bargaining agreement]. The CBA mandated that “[t]he arbitrator shall review the record of the disciplinary hearing and determine if the finding of guilt was based upon clear and convincing evidence.” Rather than comply with that mandate and review the record from the hearing, the arbitrator considered a portion of the record only, deciding to exclude certain evidence from his review. Having failed to review that which he was required to review, the court properly concluded that the arbitrator exceeded his authority and vacated the arbitration award … . Matter of O’Flynn (Monroe County Deputy Sheriffs’ Assn., Inc.), 2016 NY Slip Op 05261, 4th Dept 7-1-16

 

ARBITRATION (ARBITRATOR EXCEEDED HIS POWERS BY REFUSING TO REVIEW THE ENTIRE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AWARD PROPERLY VACATED)/MUNICIPAL LAW (ARBITRATOR EXCEEDED HIS POWERS BY REFUSING TO REVIEW THE ENTIRE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AWARD PROPERLY VACATED)/EMPLOYMENT LAW (ARBITRATOR EXCEEDED HIS POWERS BY REFUSING TO REVIEW THE ENTIRE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AWARD PROPERLY VACATED)

,

COMPLAINT ADEQUATELY ALLEGED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION AND A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT.

The Second Department determined plaintiff had stated causes of action for age discrimination and a hostile work environment. The court outlined the relevant law and applied the facts alleged to the legal principles. The law was described as follows:

To state a cause of action alleging age discrimination under the New York Human Rights Law (Executive Law § 296), a plaintiff must plead facts that would tend to show (1) that he or she was a member of a protected class, (2) that he or she was actively or constructively discharged or suffered an adverse employment action, (3) that he or she was qualified to hold the position for which he or she was terminated or suffered an adverse employment action, and (4) that the discharge or adverse employment action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of age discrimination … . * * *

To state a cause of action alleging a hostile work environment under Executive Law § 296, a plaintiff must plead facts that would tend to show ” that the complained of conduct: (1) is objectively severe or pervasive—that is, creates an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive; (2) creates an environment that the plaintiff subjectively perceives as hostile or abusive; and (3) creates such an environment because of the plaintiff’s [protected class]'” … . The United States Supreme Court has observed that courts examining hostile work environment causes of action should consider, among other things, ” the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance'” … . Godino v Premier Salons, Ltd., 2016 NY Slip Op 05118, 2nd Dept 6-29-16

EMPLOYMENT LAW (COMPLAINT ADEQUATELY ALLEGED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION AND A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT)/AGE DISCRIMINATION (EMPLOYMENT LAW, COMPLAINT ADEQUATELY ALLEGED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION AND A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT)/HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT (EMPLOYMENT LAW, COMPLAINT ADEQUATELY ALLEGED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION AND A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT)/HUMAN RIGHTS LAW  (EMPLOYMENT LAW, COMPLAINT ADEQUATELY ALLEGED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION AND A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT)

,

PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION ALLEGING WRONGFUL TERMINATION OF A PROBATIONARY CORRECTIONS OFFICER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over an extensive dissent, determined a pre-answer motion to dismiss the petition of a probationary corrections officer alleging wrongful termination should not have been granted. Petitioner had repeatedly informed his superior that an inmate had swallowed soap and bleach and needed medical care. After the inmate died, petitioner was terminated:

 

Petitioner Raymond Castro commenced this article 78 proceeding to contest respondent New York City Department of Correction’s (DOC) termination of his employment as a probationary correction officer. His termination occurred after an inmate died because petitioner’s superior, a captain, thwarted the efforts of several people, including Officer Castro, to assist the inmate with his medical condition. Officer Castro cooperated in the investigation of the inmate’s death and the federal prosecution of his superior. As fully detailed below, on the present record, Officer Castro’s conduct, both in response to the inmate’s medical emergency and during the investigation of the inmate’s death, appears appropriate. Likewise, Officer Castro’s termination, without an explanation, appears questionable and in bad faith. Under the circumstances, this Court is unable to conclude that his claim of wrongful termination as a probationary correction officer is without foundation to warrant a pre-answer dismissal based solely on the ground that it fails to state a cause of action. * * *

A probationary employee may be dismissed for almost any reason, or for no reason at all, and the employee has no right to challenge the termination in a hearing or otherwise, absent a showing that he or she was dismissed in bad faith or for an improper or impermissible reason … . The burden falls on the petitioner to demonstrate by competent proof that bad faith exists, or that the termination was for an improper or impermissible reason … . Matter of Castro v Schriro, 2016 NY Slip Op 05105, 1st Dept 6-28-16

 

EMPLOYMENT LAW (PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEE, PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION ALLEGING WRONGFUL TERMINATION OF A PROBATIONARY CORRECTIONS OFFICER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/MUNICIPAL LAW (EMPLOYMENT, PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION ALLEGING WRONGFUL TERMINATION OF A PROBATIONARY CORRECTIONS OFFICER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEE (PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEE, PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION ALLEGING WRONGFUL TERMINATION OF A PROBATIONARY CORRECTIONS OFFICER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

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