You are here: / Human Rights Law
,

Age Discrimination and Retaliation Claims Survived Summary Judgment

The First Department, over a dissent, determined plaintiff had raised questions of fact about both her age-discrimination and her retaliation claims.  The findings were entirely fact-based and centered on evidence the non-discriminatory motives asserted were pretextual.  A sample follows:

Defendants failed to demonstrate that they did not discriminate against plaintiff on the basis of her age … . Plaintiff, who was 49 when she was hired by defendant Concentric Health Care LLC, was among the oldest of Concentric’s approximately 70 employees, was qualified for her position of billing manager, and was subjected to a disadvantageous employment action, i.e. termination. Defendant Ken Begasse, Jr. (Junior), a principal of Concentric, testified, in effect, that Concentric, an advertising agency serving the pharmaceutical industry, preferred to hire younger workers because they tended to be cheaper and advertising is generally a “young industry.”

Defendants contend that they terminated plaintiff because they were in financial trouble and their independent consultant recommended terminating plaintiff and replacing her with an employee whose annual salary would be $40,000 less than hers. However, the independent consultant made this recommendation, and others, in February 2009, and, although defendants terminated a number of people based on these recommendations, they did not terminate plaintiff until November 2009, some nine months later. Moreover, Junior and defendant Michael Sanzen, another of Concentric’s principals, testified that, in the months after the consultant made his report, new employees were hired and at least one existing employee was given a $20,000 raise. Thus, issues of fact exist as to whether defendants’ proffered explanation of financial distress is pretextual … .

Issues of fact also exist as to whether defendants’ proffered explanation of poor performance is pretextual. The only documentary evidence of poor performance is a negative review that plaintiff received in September 2009, and there is evidence that, by this time, defendants had already decided to terminate her. Indeed, the review prepared by plaintiff’s immediate superior, Concentric’s comptroller, was only mildly critical of plaintiff; defendant Ken Begasse, Sr. (another of Concentric’s principals) intervened and added extensive negative comments. In an earlier employee review (December 2007), plaintiff had been lauded as “an outstanding professional with vast experience and very high standards,” who “keeps the company’s interest foremost in her mind,” and “always seems to get the work done and done properly.”  McGuinness v Concentric Health Care LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 02534, 1st Dept 4-15-14

 

, ,

Alleged Discriminatory Acts Did Not Have an “Impact” in New York—Therefore the Lawsuit Could Not Be Maintained Under the New York City and New York State Human Rights Law

The First Department determined a lawsuit based on alleged violations of  New York State and New York City Human Rights Law could not be maintained because the defendants were out-of-state residents and because the discriminatory actions complained of took place outside the United States, despite plaintiff’s being employed in New York:

The State and City Human Rights Laws do not apply to acts of discrimination against New York residents committed outside their respective boundaries by foreign defendants … . In analyzing where the discrimination occurred, “courts look to the location of the impact of the offensive conduct” … . A non-New York City resident cannot avail him or herself of the protections of the City Human Rights Law unless he or she can demonstrate that the alleged discriminatory act had an impact within the City’s boundaries … . Although plaintiff does not reside in New York City, she resides within the state and is employed by the NBA which is based in New York City. However, the order on appeal addresses plaintiff’s claims against [defendants], none of which are residents of this state. Thus, the focus is on whether the actions these defendants are alleged to have committed had an impact within the respective boundaries of the City and State of New York, in order for the court to exercise jurisdiction over them. Plaintiff contends that the decision to reassign her and later reduce her responsibilities took place within the City boundaries and, therefore, her place of employment is where the impact of the alleged discriminatory acts occurred. However, it is the place where the impact of the alleged discriminatory conduct is felt that controls whether the Human Rights Laws apply, not where the decision is made … . This standard applies whether the claim is made under the City or State Human Rights Laws … . Without more, plaintiff’s mere employment in New York does not satisfy the “impact” requirement. Hardwick v Auriemma, 2014 NY Slip Op 02383, 1st Dept 4-8-14

 

, ,

Statutory Attorney’s Fees Awarded in a Human Rights Law Action Should Not Be Added to the Jury Award to Determine the Amount of the Contingency Fee

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, explained how attorney’s fees should be calculated when there is a contingency fee agreement which does not make clear how the contingency fee is affected by the award of statutory attorney’s fees (in addition to the jury award) pursuant to the Human Rights Law.  The attorney claimed that the contingency should be calculated after adding the statutory fees to the jury award. The court disagreed:

…[B]oth federal precedent and instructive decisions from our sister states evince that,”absent a contractual provision to the contrary, the trend is to calculate the contingency fee based on the amount of the judgment exclusive of the fee award, and then credit the fee award to the client as an offset against the contingency fee owed. Under this approach, the attorney should be entitled to receive either the contingent fee calculated on the amount of the damage recovery exclusive of any court-awarded fees, or the amount of the court-awarded fee, whichever is greater”… .

In the context of the present case, concerning construction of retainer agreements in conjunction with attorneys’ fees awarded pursuant to the NYCHRL (New York city Human Rights Law), such an approach comports with our precedent holding that ambiguous fee agreements should be interpreted against the drafting attorney … .

In addition, permitting counsel to collect a statutory award that exceeds the amount due under a contingency fee agreement advances the “uniquely broad and remedial purpose” of the NYCHRL by incentivizing the private bar to represent civil rights plaintiffs even where any damage award is likely to be insubstantial … . In this regard, freedom of contract is also respected since, in the event that the statutory award is less than the contingency fee, deducting the court-awarded fees from the sum owed under the contract ensures that the attorney receives, and the client pays, no more or less than they bargained for … .

On the facts before us, we need not decide whether a retainer agreement entitling an attorney to court-ordered counsel fees in addition to the full contingency fee would be enforceable. We would note, however, that such an arrangement would be subject to requisite scrutiny under applicable laws and rules controlling the reasonableness of attorney compensation… .  Albunio v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 02325, CtApp 4-3-14

 

,

In Disability Discrimination Suits Brought Under the NYS and NYC Human Rights Law, to Prevail on Summary Judgment, the Employer Must Demonstrate It Engaged in a Good Faith Interactive Process to Consider a Proposed Accommodation

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, the Court of Appeals determined that to prevail on a motion for summary judgment in a disability discrimination action brought under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law, the employer must demonstrate it engaged in a good faith interactive process to consider the reasonableness of a proposed accommodation to the disability.  The failure to so demonstrate in this case precluded summary judgment.  The employee had developed a lung condition which required that he not be exposed to construction dust.  His job required that he visit construction sites.  With respect to the consideration of a proposed accommodation in the context of a summary judgment motion, the court wrote:

In light of the importance of the employer's consideration of the employee's proposed accommodation, the employer normally cannot obtain summary judgment on a State HRL claim unless the record demonstrates that there is no triable issue of fact as to whether the employer duly considered the requested accommodation. And, the employer cannot present such a record if the employer has not engaged in interactions with the employee revealing at least some deliberation upon the viability of the employee's request. Consequently, to prevail on a summary judgment motion with respect to a State HRL claim, the employer must show that it “engage[d] in a good faith interactive process that assesse[d] the needs of the disabled individual and the reasonableness of the accommodation requested” … . And, because the City HRL provides broader protections against disability discrimination than the State HRL, the City HRL unquestionably forecloses summary judgment where the employer has not engaged in a good faith interactive process regarding a specifically requested accommodation … .  Jacobsen v New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, 34, CtApp 3-27-14

 

,

Stray Remarks Doctrine Applied in Action Under New York City Human Rights Law

The First Department determined that the “stray remarks doctrine” applied to actions brought brought under the New York City Human Rights Law.  The court rejected the argument that a statement in an email written weeks after plaintiff’s termination was actionable, asserting the so-called “stray remarks doctrine:”

Plaintiff relies on one remark made in an email exchange that took place weeks after the decision to terminate him was made and that concerned the resolution of his union’s grievance following the termination. In the email, one of defendant’s employees responsible for making the decision to terminate plaintiff declined to reconsider the penalty because of the nature of plaintiff’s convictions and his concern about the liability that defendant would assume if plaintiff committed a similar crime while on company time. However, “[s]tray remarks such as [this], even if made by a decision maker, do not, without more, constitute evidence of discrimination” … .  Indeed, plaintiff did not demonstrate a nexus between the employee’s remark and the decision to terminate him… .

We decline to hold, as urged by plaintiff and amici, that the stray remarks doctrine may not be relied on in determining claims brought pursuant to the City Human Rights Law, even as we recognize the law’s “uniquely broad and remedial purposes” (Bennett, 92 AD3d at 34 [internal quotation marks omitted]). The doctrine is not inconsistent with the intentions of the law, since statements “constitute evidence of discriminatory motivation when a plaintiff demonstrates that a nexus exists between the allegedly discriminatory statements and a defendant’s decision to discharge the plaintiff” … . Godbolt v Verizon NY Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 01561, 1st Dept 3-11-14

 

, ,

Unjust Enrichment Does Not Require a Wrongful Act by the One Enriched

The Second Department explained the criteria for determining a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action and the elements of an unjust enrichment cause of action. Unjust enrichment does not require a wrongful act:

“On a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action, the court must afford the pleading a liberal construction, accept all facts as alleged in the pleading to be true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory” … . “Whether the complaint will later survive a motion for summary judgment, or whether the plaintiff will ultimately be able to prove its claims, of course, plays no part in the determination of a prediscovery CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss” … .”The essential inquiry in any action for unjust enrichment or restitution is whether … it is against equity and good conscience to permit the defendant to retain what is sought to be recovered” … . A plaintiff must show that (1) the other party was enriched, (2) at the plaintiff’s expense, and (3) that it is against equity and good conscience to permit the other party to retain what is sought to be recovered … .”Unjust enrichment . . . does not require the performance of any wrongful act by the one enriched” … . “Innocent parties may frequently be unjustly enriched” … . “What is required, generally, is that a party hold property under such circumstances that in equity and good conscience he ought not to retain it'” … . Alan B Greenfield MD PC v Beach Imaging Holdings LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 01285, 2nd Dept 2-26-14

 

, ,

Plaintiff Raised a Question of Fact About Whether Her Employment Was Terminated in Retaliation for Protected Activity

The Fourth Department concluded plaintiff had raised a question of fact about whether the termination of her employment with the county was in retaliation for protected activity. The wife of plaintiff’s boss was a special education teacher working with plaintiff’s son. Shortly after complaining to the school district about the special education plaintiff’s son was receiving, plaintiff’s job was eliminated. The Fourth Department summarized the applicable law as follows:

In order to make out a claim for unlawful retaliation under state or federal law, a plaintiff must show that “(1) she has engaged in protected activity, (2) her employer was aware that she participated in such activity, (3) she suffered an adverse employment action based upon her activity, and (4) there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action” … .In order to establish entitlement to summary judgment in a retaliation case, a defendant may “demonstrate that the plaintiff cannot make out a prima facie claim of retaliation” or, alternatively, a defendant may “offer legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons for the challenged actions,” and show that there are “no triable issue[s] of fact . . . whether the . . . [reasons are] pretextual”… . * * *With respect to the element of a causal connection, we note that such element “may be established either ‘indirectly by showing that the protected activity was followed closely by [retaliatory] treatment, . . . or directly through evidence of retaliatory animus directed against a plaintiff by the defendant’ ”… . Calhoun v County of Herkimer, 1303, 4th Dept 2-14-14

 

,

Crude Conduct Not Motivated by Petitioners’ Gender/Case of Same Sex Discrimination Not Made Out

The Third Department determined a case of “same sex” sex discrimination had not been made out.  The petitioners (Bargy and Colon) are male.  The conduct complained of related to the supervisor’s (Andross’) bringing a woman to the hotel room in which all three men were staying during a construction project and having sex with her.  After a dispute between the petitioners and the woman, the supervisor fired them:

Here, neither the written complaints nor testimony of Bargy or Colon set forth any allegations or indication of how Andross’ conduct was motivated by their gender or that their grievances to petitioner were ignored because of their gender.  The ALJ’s decision does not refer to any proof supporting a finding that complainants’ gender was relevant to, or a reason for, the conduct.  Of the recognized paths for showing same-sex discrimination, the only one even arguably applicable is harassment based on gender-stereotyping.  However, the ALJ made no such finding.  … We fully agree that Andross’ conduct was crude, coarse and grossly unprofessional; nevertheless, in the absence of proof of gender-based discrimination, such conduct does not establish a claim.  We are constrained by the record to conclude that there is not substantial evidence that the conduct was caused by or related in any relevant fashion to complainants’ gender … . Matter of Arcuri v Kirkland…, 516735, 3rd Dept 1-9-14

 

, ,

School Employee Stated Discrimination Cause of Action City Department of Education

The Court of Appeals affirmed the appellate division and found plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence of employment discrimination to survive a motion to dismiss:

Defendants are of course correct that evidence only that the principal made stray discriminatory comments without any basis for inferring a connection to the termination would be insufficient to defeat defendants’ motion (see Forrest, 3 NY3d at 308 [comments made years before the plaintiff’s termination failed to raise a triable issue of fact in light of the clear evidence of plaintiff’s misconduct]).  But that is not the case here.  Plaintiff has offered evidence of, among other things: defendant principal’s repeated homophobic remarks directed at plaintiff; his decision to report to the Department of Education (DOE) allegations that plaintiff had engaged in misconduct while working at an after-school program that he did not supervise; his close relationship with the alleged victims of the misconduct; his independent decision to terminate plaintiff’s employment; and the after-school program supervisor’s opinion that plaintiff had not engaged in any misconduct worthy of reporting to the DOE. This is sufficient to deny defendants’ motion for summary dismissal.  Sandiford v City of New York Dept of Education, 157, CtApp 10-17-15

 

,

Employment Discrimination Claim Stated Under the NYC Human Rights Law But Not Under the State Human Rights Law

Over a partial dissent, the Court of Appeals determined that plaintiff’s employment discrimination claim under the state Human Rights Law (HRL) was properly dismissed but that the claim under the city HRL should not have been dismissed.  The city, unlike the state, places the burden on the employer to show that it could not provide reasonable accommodations to allow a disabled employee to work.  The employee essentially asked for an indefinite leave from work based upon severe depression:

In the context of employment discrimination, the term “disability” as defined in the State HRL is “limited to disabilities which, upon the provision of reasonable accommodations, do not prevent the complainant from performing in a reasonable manner the activities involved in the job or occupation sought or held” (Executive Law § 292 [21]).  A “reasonable accommodation” means actions taken which permit an employee with a disability to perform in a reasonable manner activities involved in the job, and “do not impose an undue hardship on the business” (Executive Law § 292 [21-e]).  To state a claim under the State HRL, the complaint and supporting documentation must set forth factual allegations sufficient to show that, “upon the provision of reasonable accommodations, [the employee] could perform the essential functions of [his or] her job” … .  Indefinite leave is not considered a reasonable accommodation under the State HRL … .

Here, neither plaintiff’s communications with his employer just prior to his termination nor the complaint filed one year later offer any indication as to when plaintiff planned to return to work.  Instead, plaintiff informed his employer that he had not expressed any intention to “abandon” his job and that his return to work date was “indeterminate”; the complaint merely alleges that plaintiff sought “a continued leave of absence to allow him to recover and return to work.”  “Indeterminate” means “not definitely or precisely determined or fixed” … .  * * *

The City HRL, on the other hand, affords protections broader than the State HRL  * * *.

Unlike the State HRL, the City HRL’s definition of “disability” does not include “reasonable accommodation” or the ability to perform a job in a reasonable manner.  Rather, the City HRL defines “disability” solely in terms of impairments (Administrative Code of City of NY § 8–102 [16]).  The City HRL requires that an employer “make reasonable accommodation to enable a person with a disability to satisfy the essential requisites of a job . . . provided that the disability is known or should have been known by the [employer]” (id. at § 8–107 [15] [a]).  Contrary to the State HRL, it is the employer’s burden to prove undue hardship … .  And, the City HRL provides employers an affirmative defense if the employee cannot, with reasonable accommodation, “satisfy the essential requisites of the job” (Administrative Code 8-107 [15] [b]). Thus, the employer, not the employee, has the “pleading obligation” to prove that the employee “could not, with reasonable accommodation, satisfy the essential requisites of the job” … .  Romanello v Intesa Sanpaolo …, 152, CtApp 10-10-13

 

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