You are here: / Human Rights Law
, , , ,

COMPLAINT ALLEGING THE NEW YORK CITY PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM DISCRIMINATES AGAINST STUDENTS OF COLOR AND SEEKING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Moulton, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint alleging the New York City public school system discriminates against Black and Latinx students and seeking injunctive relief was justiciable and stated valid causes of action. Therefore the complaint, which had been dismissed, is now reinstated. The opinion is comprehensive and far too detailed to fairly summarize here:

Plaintiffs allege that State and City policies create a “racialized” admission pipeline. According to plaintiffs, the pipeline begins with a single standardized test for the City’s Gifted & Talented (G&T) programs taken by children as young as four-years-old. The G&T test, plaintiffs assert, disproportionately benefits “privileged” white students and their “in-the-know” parents, who have the “navigational capital” to understand the admissions process and the economic capital to pay for expensive test preparation. The G&T programs, plaintiffs allege, provide superior academic preparation, which allows primarily white and Asian students to continue through the pipeline to academically screened middle and high schools, relegating Black and Latinx students to unscreened schools, often in poorly maintained buildings with limited extracurricular programs. The end of the pipeline, or “zenith” as plaintiffs describe it, is admission to one of eight New York City specialized high schools based on the results of the Special High School Admissions Test (the SHSAT).* * *

The pipeline, plaintiffs claim, is designed to exclude Black and Latinx students from the City’s prime educational opportunities. According to plaintiffs, the State and the City “intentionally adopted” and “for decades have intentionally retained—with no pedagogical basis—testing-based sorting that they know excludes students of color from equal educational opportunities.” This knowledge was acquired, plaintiffs allege, “through decades of experience and reflected in [defendants] own admissions” including the knowledge of the public school system’s “racist character and outcomes.” Despite this knowledge, plaintiffs allege that the State and the City “intentionally refuse to dismantle . . . its racialized channeling system.” IntegrateNYC, Inc. v State of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 02369, First Dept 5-2-24

Practice Point: Here Supreme Court’s conclusion that the suit seeking injunctive relief from discriminatory education policies and procedures in the New York City public school system was not “justiciable” was rejected.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF BROUGHT AN EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION ACTION IN FEDERAL COURT; DEFENDANTS WERE AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE FEDERAL ACTION; BECAUSE THE FEDERAL COURT DID NOT EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF’S NYS AND NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF PURSUED THEM IN STATE COURT; HOWEVER ALL THE STATE ISSUES HAD BEEN ADDRESSED IN THE FEDERAL ACTION; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL PRECLUDED THE STATE ACTION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over an extensive dissenting opinion, determined that the employment discrimination and retaliation claims brought by plaintiff adjunct professor against New York University under the NYS and NYC Human Rights Law were precluded by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Plaintiff had brought a federal action based upon the same facts which was dismissed, but the District Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state and city Human Rights Law causes of action. Plaintiff therefore could pursue those causes of action in state court. But because all the issues had been sufficiently dealt with by the federal court, the collateral estoppel doctrine was triggered:

The courts below properly applied our established principles of collateral estoppel in the context of the unique requirements of the City Human Rights Law. Collateral estoppel “bars the relitigation of an issue of fact or law actually litigated and resolved in a valid court determination essential to the prior judgment” and so “the determination of an essential issue is binding in a subsequent action, even if it recurs in the context of a different claim” … . If there is identity of issues between the prior determination and the instant litigation, and the precluded party had a full and fair opportunity to contest the prior determination, collateral estoppel applies and the prior determination is binding in the subsequent action … . Russell v New York Univ., 2024 NY Slip Op 02226, CtApp 4-25-24

Practice Point: In an employment discrimination and retaliation case brought in federal court, a plaintiff can ask the federal court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over New York State and New York City Human Rights Law causes of action. Where, as here, the federal court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, the plaintiff may pursue those actions in state court. Here, because plaintiff lost the federal case, and all the issues raised in the state case were addressed in the federal case, the doctrine of collateral estoppel precluded the state action.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S DEMAND FOR MONETARY DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF IN THIS EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CASE DID NOT WAIVE THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL; PLAINTIFF COULD BE MADE WHOLE ENTIRELY BY A MONETARY AWARD (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the demand for both money damages and equitable relief in this employment discrimination case did not waive plaintiff’s right to a jury trial. The plaintiff could be made whole entirely with money damages:

CPLR 4101(1) provides, in pertinent part, that “issues of fact shall be tried by a jury, unless a jury trial is waived,” in any action “in which a party demands and sets forth facts which would permit a judgment for a sum of money only.” The “deliberate joinder of claims for legal and equitable relief arising out of the same transaction” may constitute a waiver of the right to a jury trial … . However, the right to a jury trial must be determined by the facts alleged in the complaint and not by the prayer for relief … , and “[w]here a plaintiff alleges facts upon which monetary damages alone will afford full relief, inclusion of a demand for equitable relief in the complaint’s prayer for relief will not constitute a waiver of the right to a jury trial” … . A jury trial will not be waived if the equitable relief sought by the plaintiff is “incidental to [his or her] demand for money damages” … .

Here, the gravamen of the plaintiff’s action is to recover damages for employment discrimination. Therefore, the character of the action is essentially legal, and even though the prayer for relief in the complaint contains demands for equitable relief, only an award of monetary damages would afford the plaintiff a full and complete remedy … . Blackman v Metropolitan Tr. Auth., 2024 NY Slip Op 01530, Second Dept 3-20-24

Practice Point: Although a demand for equitable relief may waive the right to a jury trial, here there was no waiver because plaintiff could be made whole with a monetary award.

 

,

​ THE DENIAL OFTHE NON-RESIDENT’S APPLICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT IN NEW YORK CITY IS SUBJECT TO THE EMPLOYMENT-DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITIONS IN THE NEW YORK CITY AND NEW YORK STATE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (CT APP).

The Second Department, answering a certified question from the Second Circuit, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, determined that the denial of an non-New-York-resident’s application for employment in New York City is subject to the prohibitions of employment discrimination under the NYS and NYC Human Rights Law. Plaintiff was employed by defendant in Washington DC and sought, but was denied, a new position with the defendant in New York City:

… [A] nonresident who has been discriminatorily denied a job in New York City or State loses the chance to work, and perhaps live, within those geographic areas. The prospective employee personally feels the impact of a discriminatory refusal to promote or hire in New York City or State, because that is where the person wished to work (and perhaps relocate) and where they were denied the chance to do so. When applying the required liberal construction of “inhabitants” and “individual within this state” (Executive Law § 290 [3]; Administrative Code § 8-101), a prospective inhabitant or employee, who was denied a job opportunity because of discriminatory conduct, fits comfortably within the Human Rights Laws’ protection. Syeed v Bloomberg L.P., 2024 NY Slip Op 01330, CtApp 3-14-24

Practice Point: Plaintiff worked for defendant in Washington DC and sought, but was denied, a new position with defendant in New York City. Although a non-resident, plaintiff could bring a failure-to-hire/failure-to-promote employment-discrimination action in New York pursuant to the NYC and NYS Human Rights Law.

 

, , ,

A LETTER FROM AN ATTORNEY THREATENING LITIGATION CAN CONSTITUTE “RETALIATION” AGAINST THOSE WHO MAKE HOUSING DICSRIMINATION COMPLAINTS PURSUANT TO THE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, reversing the Appellate Division, determined a letter sent by an attorney for the landlord, Pine Ridge, to the respondent CityVision, a not-for-profit corporation which tests whether housing facilities engage in discrimination, constituted “retaliation” against those who make discrimination complaints. Here a CityVision employee, Renner, posed as a prospective tenant and allegedly was steered to a different apartment complex because she had children (discrimination based on familial status). CityVision’s complaint to the NYS Division of Human Rights (DHR) was dismissed. An attorney for Pine Ridge then sent a letter to CityVision which mentioned seeking damages. CityVision then filed a second complaint alleging the letter constituted “retaliation:” Although the matter was remitted to DHR because it was CityVision’s, not Pine Ridge;s, burden to show it was engaged in a protected activity, the Court of Appeals held that the threat of litigation can constitute “retaliation” in this context.

… [A] plaintiff bears the burden to establish a prima facie retaliation claim … . To meet that burden, the plaintiff must show that (1) they have “engaged in protected activity,” (2) the defendant “was aware that” the plaintiff “participated in” the protected activity, (3) the plaintiff suffered adverse action based upon the activity, and (4) “there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action” (id.). Only the first and third elements of CityVision’s retaliation claim are at issue here. ***

… [T]he record established that [the attorney’s] letter “shocked” CityVision’s employees and forced CityVision to expend resources and “scramble . . . to locate counsel” to address the threat. … [I]t was rational for DHR to conclude that the threatening letter caused CityVision to divert resources and could have dissuaded a person from pursuing a discrimination claim to protect their rights under the Human Rights Law. Indeed, a potential plaintiff might be chilled from filing a discrimination complaint when weighing the harm caused by the threat of retaliatory litigation, let alone the injury potentially occasioned by actual retaliatory litigation. DHR’s determination that the litigation threat amounted to adverse action in this case was rational and, thus, supported by substantial evidence. Matter of Clifton Park Apts., LLC v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 2024 NY Slip Op 00793, CtApp 2-15-24

Practice Point: Here a not-for-profit filed a complaint against a landlord alleging housing discrimination. After the complaint was dismissed, an attorney for the landlord sent a letter to the not-for-profit arguably threatening litigation. The letter constituted “retaliation” within the meaning of the Human Rights Law.

 

, , , ,

​ ALTHOUGH NOT REQUIRED UNDER THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, FILING A NOTICE OF CLAIM FOR AN EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION IS REQUIRED UNDER THE TOWN LAW; BECAUSE THE TOWN HAD TIMELY KNOWELDGE OF THE FACTS UNDERLYING THE ACTION, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined (1) although plaintiff would not have been required to file a notice of claim for an employment discrimination action against a city pursuant to the General Municipal Law, plaintiff is required to file a notice of claim for the instant employment discrimination action against the town pursuant to the Town Law, and (2) plaintiff was entitled to leave to file a late notice of claim. The notice of claim provisions in the Town Law are broader than those in the General Municipal Law and include “wrong to a person” which encompasses employment discrimination:

Consistent with the purpose of the Human Rights Law, unlawful discrimination and retaliation is undoubtably considered a wrong against a person (see Executive Law § 290 [3]). Thus, the plain, unambiguous text of Town Law § 67 directs that a notice of claim is required for an action alleging violations of the Human Rights Law. * * *

Although the presence or absence of any given factor is not determinative, it is well settled that “[a] factor to be accorded great weight in determining whether to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim is whether the [public corporation] had actual knowledge of the facts underlying the claim, including knowledge of the injuries or damages” … . …

… [T]here is no dispute that the Town and its officers had timely actual knowledge of the facts underlying the claim … . Arnold v Town of Camillus, 2023 NY Slip Op 06627, Fourth Dept 12-22-23

Practice Point: Unlike the General Municipal Law, the Town Law requires the filing of a notice of claim for an employment discrimination action under the Human Rights Law.

Practice Point: The most important criterium for granting leave to file a late notice of claim is the defendant’s timely knowledge of the facts underlying the action.

 

, ,

​PLAINTIFF’S FIRST EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE NYS HUMAN RIGHTS LAW; PLAINTIFF’S SECOND COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE SAME STATUTE; THE SECOND COMPLAINT WAS NOT BARRED BY THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff stated a cause of action for employment discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). Plaintiff had filed a prior complaint which was properly dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. Plaintiff then filed the instant complaint under the same statute by on different grounds. The instant complaint was not precluded the the doctrine of res judicata:

… [T]his cause of action was not barred by the doctrine of res judicata. That doctrine “precludes a party from relitigating a claim that has been finally adjudicated on the merits” …  “Although, generally, a dismissal for failure to state a cause of action based on the insufficiency of the allegations in the pleading is not a dismissal on the merits, and does not bar the adequate repleading of the claim in a subsequent action, such a determination has preclusive effect as to a new complaint for the same cause of action which fails to correct the defect or supply the omission determined to exist in the earlier complaint” … . The first cause of action alleged in the present complaint was distinct from that alleged in the prior action, the latter of which was based upon an alleged failure of the defendants, among others, to provide a reasonable accommodation in the form of certain medical leave, as well as retaliation for engaging in a protected activity. Thus, the dismissal of those causes of action under CPLR 3211(a)(7) did not bar the first cause of action asserted in the present complaint. Duchemin v Village of E. Hampton, 2023 NY Slip Op 06350, Second Dept 12-13-24

Practice Point: Here the first complaint alleging employment discrimination was dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. That is not considered a dismissal on the merits. Therefore the second employment-discrimination complaint, brought under the same body of law, was not precluded by the doctrine of res judicata.

 

, , ,

DISMISSAL OF THE HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT CAUSES OF ACTION IN FEDERAL COURT DID NOT COLLATERALLY ESTOP PLAINTIFF’S HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT CAUSE OF ACTION IN STATE COURT PURSUANT TO THE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (NYCHRL) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the dismissal of the hostile work environment causes of action by the federal court did not collaterally estop plaintiff’s hostile work environment cause of action in state court pursuant to the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL):

Supreme Court erred in granting dismissal of the cause of action alleging hostile work environment pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5). The District Court analyzed the hostile work environment claims under the standards set by Title VII and NYSHRL, and determined that those claims were neither “pervasive” nor “extraordinarily severe.” Under NYCHRL, a claimant must only prove that they were “treated less well than other employees” because of their gender … . As the plaintiff’s allegations of sexual harassment and improper touching could constitute “more than petty slights and trivial inconveniences” without rising to the level of being severe and pervasive, Supreme Court should not have granted dismissal of this cause of action pursuant to the doctrine of collateral estoppel … . Domingo v Avis Budget Group, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 04463, Second Dept 8-30-23

Practice Point: The New York City Human Rights Law has less stringent standards for a hostile work environment cause of action than those required by the New York State Human Rights Law.

 

,

PLAINTIFF WAS NOT HIRED BECAUSE HE TESTED POSITIVE FOR MARIJUANA WHEN HE WAS UNDER TREATMENT WITH MARIJUANA; THAT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined that refusing to hire plaintiff for testing positive for marijuana when he was being treated with marijuana stated a cause of action for employment discrimination:

We find unavailing the defendant’s contention that the complaint failed to state a cause of action to recover damages for employment discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of the NYCHRL [New York City Human Rights Law] because the defendant chose not to hire the plaintiff based only on his positive drug test and not his disability. Refusing to hire the plaintiff because he tested positive for marijuana while knowing that he was being treated with marijuana by a licensed physician for a medical condition effectively denied the plaintiff the opportunity of a reasonable accommodation, and therefore, under these circumstances, is appropriately recognized as a cognizable cause of action to recover damages for employment discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of the NYCHRL … . Brouillard v Sunrun, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 04184, Second Dept 8-9-23

Practice Point: Refusing to hire plaintiff for testing positive for marijuana when plaintiff was under a doctor’s treatment with marijuana stated a cause of action for denying the plaintiff the opportunity of a reasonable accommodation.

 

,

THE PLAINTIFF, A MALE EMT, ALLEGED HE WAS TERMINATED BECAUSE OF HIS INVOLVEMENT IN A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT AND SEVERAL FEMALE EMT’S WERE INVOLVED IN COMPARABLE ACCIDENTS BUT WERE NOT TERMINATED; PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR SEX DISCRIMINATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff emergency medical technician (EMT) stated a cause of action for sex discrimination. Plaintiff alleged he was terminated because he was involved in a traffic accident but several female EMT’s were involved in comparable accidents but were not terminated:

The NYSHRL [state human rights law] and the NYCHRL [city human rights law], prohibit discrimination in employment on the basis of sex … . “A plaintiff alleging discrimination in employment in violation of the NYSHRL must establish that (1) she or he is a member of a protected class, (2) she or he was qualified to hold the position, (3) she or he suffered an adverse employment action, and (4) the adverse action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination” … . “Under the NYCHRL, the plaintiff must establish that she or he was subject to an unfavorable employment change or treated less well than other employees on the basis of a protected characteristic” … . Here, accepting the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, and according the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, the complaint sufficiently alleges circumstances which give rise to an inference of sex discrimination, and adequately states a cause of action pursuant to the NYCHRL and the NYSHRL … . Silvers v Jamaica Hosp., 2023 NY Slip Op 03938, Second Dept 7-26-23

Practice Point: Here a male employee alleged he was terminated because he was involved in a traffic accident and several female employees were involved in comparable accidents but were not terminated. That allegation stated a cause of action for sex discrimination. 

 

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 © 2024 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy