You are here: / Human Rights Law
,

THE DIFFERING CRITERIA FOR GENDER DISCRIMINATION, HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT AND RETALIATION UNDER THE NEW YORK STATE AND NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAREFULLY EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, carefully laid out the criteria for gender diiscrimination, hostile work environment and retaliation under the NYS Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and the NYC Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). The gender discriimination claims should have been dismissed, but the hostile work environment and retaliation claims properly survived summary judgment. The decision is too detailed to fairly summarize here and should be consulted for its explanation of the differing criteria under the NYS and NYC Human Rights Law. With respect to gender discrimination, the court wrote:

[Under the NYSHRL] a triable issue of fact regarding the falsity of the appellants’ proffered reasons for the employment action is not enough; there must be evidence “both that the reason was false, and that discrimination was the real reason” … . Here, the parties’ evidentiary submissions reveal no evidence that gender discrimination was the real reason for the challenged employment actions. …

… [A]n action alleging discrimination in violation of the NYCHRL “‘must be analyzed under both the familiar framework of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v Green (411 US 792 [1973]) and under the newer mixed motive framework, which imposes a lesser burden on a plaintiff opposing such a motion'” (Sanderson-Burgess v City of New York, 173 AD3d 1233, 1235 …). “‘Summary judgment dismissing a claim under the NYCHRL should be granted only if no jury could find [the] defendant liable under any of the evidentiary routes—McDonnell Douglas, mixed motive, direct evidence, or some combination thereof'” … . Here, the plaintiff … failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the conduct was a pretext to mask a discriminatory intent or was in part motivated by discrimination … . Bilitch v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2021 NY Slip Op 03300, Second Dept 5-26-21

 

, , , ,

DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO A DIRECTED VERDICT ON THE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CAUSE OF ACTION; DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REMARK ABOUT THE FINANCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF A PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT DEPRIVED PLAINTIFF OF A FAIR TRIAL; THE COURT OF CLAIMS HAS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER ACTIONS SEEKING MONEY DAMAGES FROM THE STATE, RELEVANT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined defendants’ motion for a directed verdict should not have been granted and the defense attorney’s remark in summation warranted a new trial. Plaintiff alleged he was denied promotion at the Central New York Psychiatric Center (CNYPC) because the defendants deemed him mentally unstable due to his status as a veteran of the Iraq war.  The directed verdict awarded defendants on that issue was reversed. The defense counsel’s remark in summation that one of the individual defendants would have to “open up her checkbook and write somebody a check” if plaintiff wins deprived plaintiff of a fair trial (the state is required to indemnify defendants as state officers and employees). This case was brought in Supreme Court. The Fourth Department noted that the Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over actions against the state for money damages (apparently the relevant causes of action were properly dismissed for that reason):

Plaintiff … contends that the court erred in granting defendants’ motion for a directed verdict with respect to plaintiff’s cause of action under the New York Human Rights Law alleging discrimination based on military status … . We agree. * * * Based upon the … testimony that plaintiff was not promoted because “[t]here was a question after [plaintiff’s] military service about his [mental] stability,” the jury could have rationally inferred that defendants refused to promote plaintiff in part because they perceived that combat veterans, such as plaintiff, develop dangerous and disqualifying mental health issues as a result of their military service. Thus, “it cannot be said that ‘it would . . . be utterly irrational for a jury to reach [a verdict in favor of plaintiff]’ ” … . * * *

… [R]emarks about a party’s financial status “have been universally condemned by the courts of this State” … . The defense attorney’s argument that his clients should not be “forced to open [their] checkbook” likely conveyed that the individual defendants would be required to pay any damages out-of-pocket. That remark was “grossly improper” … . Moreover, it misrepresented the law to the jury. The State has a duty to indemnify its employees for judgments that arise out of actions within the scope of their public duties, although that duty does not arise from injury or damage resulting from intentional wrongdoing on the part of the employee (see Public Officers Law § 17 [3] [a]). Hubbard v New York State Off. of Mental Health, Cent. N.Y. Psychiatric Ctr., 2021 NY Slip Op 01661, Fourth Dept 3-19-21

 

, ,

WHERE PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER IS A BUSINESS ENTITY, HERE BLOOMBERG L.P., AN OWNER OR OFFICER OF THE COMPANY, HERE MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, IS NOT AN EMPLOYER WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW; THE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION AGAINST MICHAEL BLOOMBERG WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over an extensive dissent, determined Michael Bloomberg, in his status as “owner” and officer of the company, Bloomberg L.P., is not an “employer” within the meaning of the NYC Human Rights Law, and therefore cannot be liable for harassment of the plaintiff (Doe) by her supervisor, Ferris. Bloomberg L.P. can be vicariously liable as the employer, but Michael Bloomberg cannot:

Plaintiff, an employee of Bloomberg L.P. using the pseudonym “Margaret Doe,” brought suit against defendants Bloomberg L.P., her supervisor Nicholas Ferris, and Michael Bloomberg, asserting several causes of action arising from alleged discrimination, sexual harassment, and sexual abuse. The question before us is whether Bloomberg, in addition to Bloomberg L.P., may be held vicariously liable as an employer under the New York City Human Rights Law (Administrative Code of City of NY, title 8 [City HRL]) based on his status as “owner” and officer of the company. We hold that Bloomberg is not an “employer” within the meaning of the City HRL and accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of plaintiff’s claims that seek to hold Bloomberg vicariously liable for Ferris’s offending conduct. * * *

The language in the City HRL … requires no external limiting principle exempting employees from individual suit as employers. … [W]here a plaintiff’s employer is a business entity, the shareholders, agents, limited partners, and employees of that entity are not employers within the meaning of the City HRL. … [T]hose individuals may incur liability only for their own discriminatory conduct, for aiding and abetting such conduct by others, or for retaliation against protected conduct (Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-107 [1], [6], [7]). This rule [is] consistent with the principles of vicarious and limited liability governing certain business structures (see e.g. Partnership Law §§ 26, 121-303; Limited Liability Company Law § 609; Business Corporation Law § 719). Doe v Bloomberg, L.P., 2021 NY Slip Op 00898, CtApp, 2-11-21

 

, , , ,

HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CLAIMS DID NOT ALLEGE DISCRIMINATION; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS DOES NOT APPLY TO TERMINATION OF AT WILL EMPLOYMENT; WORKERS’ COMPENSATION IS THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR NEGLIGENCE ACTIONS AGAINST AN EMPLOYER; PUNITIVE DAMAGES NOT AVAILABLE FOR THE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION OR BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that several of plaintiff’s causes of action, as well as claims for punitive damages, should have been dismissed. Plaintiff’s lawsuit stemmed from alleged wrongful conduct in terminating the plaintiff’s employment and evicting him from a work-provided apartment:

… [P]laintiff alleges that he engaged in “protected activity” when his attorney sent a letter to one or more defendants about an altercation between plaintiff and a neighbor. We agree with defendants that … sending the letter did not constitute “protected activity” because the letter did not suggest, much less allege, that anyone had engaged in “unlawful discrimination,” i.e., conduct prohibited by the [Human Rights Law]. …

… [I]t is well established that “[t]ort causes of action alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress . . . ‘cannot be allowed in circumvention of the unavailability of a tort claim for wrongful discharge or the contract rule against liability for discharge of an at-will employee’ ” … . …

With respect to the fifth and eighth causes of action (negligent infliction of emotional distress and negligent hiring, training, and supervision, respectively), it is well established that workers’ compensation benefits are the “exclusive remedy for . . . injuries allegedly caused by the negligence of [a person’s] employer and fellow employee” … . …

Punitive damages are not available for the employment discrimination claims in the complaint … . … [T]he breach of contract claim … does not qualify for punitive damages because plaintiff does not allege that [the] alleged breach of contract was ” ‘aimed at the public generally’ ” … . Miller v National Prop. Mgt. Assoc., Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 00729, Fourth Dept 2-5-21

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A POLICE OFFICER SUFFERING FROM BIPOLAR DISORDER, COMMITTED SUICIDE; THE ESTATE BROUGHT A WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION AGAINST THE CITY; ALTHOUGH THE FACTS SUPPORTED AN EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CLAIM, THE COMPLAINT DID NOT ALLEGE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION; THE COMPLAINT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta. determined plaintiff’s decedent (Benitez), a police officer who committed suicide, was disabled by bipolar disorder and was entitled to accommodation under the state and city Human Rights Law. However, because the estate brought a wrongful death action, and did not allege Human Rights Law discrimination causes of action, the complaint was properly dismissed:

… [P]laintiff conceded that this case “ha[d] been primarily brought on a claim of negligence,” that it had not interposed separate statutory causes of action, and that “this [wa]s a negligence c[ase], not a c[ase] based on discriminatory practices.” …

Inasmuch as plaintiff did not raise any Human Rights Law violations for failure to accommodate, we are constrained to affirm … . Supreme Court correctly concluded that defendants did not owe Benitez a duty to prevent him from committing suicide. A defendant owes such a duty where it is either “a facility such as a hospital or jail which is in actual physical custody of an individual” or “an institution or mental health professional with sufficient expertise to detect suicidal tendencies and with the control necessary to care for the person’s well-being” … . Here, defendants had neither “actual physical custody” of the decedent nor “the control necessary to care for [his] well-being” before his suicide … . Furthermore, a defendant only breaches its duty to prevent a decedent’s suicide when it “fails to take reasonable steps to prevent a reasonably foreseeable suicide … ,” and there is no evidence in this case that the decedent’s suicide was “reasonably foreseeable” … .

On appeal, plaintiff argues that the NYPD failed to accommodate Benitez under, among other statutes, the City Human Rights Law (City HRL). However, plaintiff improperly raises elements of disability discrimination in the context of a wrongful death action. Benitez v City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 00617, First Dept 2-4-21

 

, , ,

UNDER THE TERMS OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT PLAINTIFF MUST ARBITRATE HIS RACIAL DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS; AFTER THE UNION REFUSED TO ARBITRATE THE CLAIMS PLAINTIFF BROUGHT THE INSTANT HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION; THE COMPLAINT WAS STAYED PENDING ARBITRATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a comprehensive opinion by Justice Christopher, determined plaintiff’s racial discrimination claims were subject to mandatory arbitration under the controlling collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The union had declined to pursue the arbitration of the discrimination claims and plaintiff then commenced the instant action pursuant to the NYS and NYC Human Rights Law. The opinion is to detailed to fairly summarize here. The plaintiff’s complaint was stayed pending arbitration:

“[A]rbitration must be preferred unless it may be said with positive assurance that the arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute” … . An agreement to arbitrate must be “clear, explicit and unequivocal” … . “Arbitration is a matter of contract, and arbitration clauses, which are subject to ordinary principles of contract interpretation, must be enforced according to their terms” … . * * *

… [I]n order for the plaintiff to be required to arbitrate his employment discrimination claims, the CBA must “clearly and unmistakably” waive the plaintiff’s right to proceed in a judicial forum … . Here, the mandatory arbitration clause “clearly and unmistakably” waives the plaintiff’s right to proceed in a judicial forum. It explicitly references the employment discrimination statutes that the plaintiff has alleged were violated, and states that “[a]ll such claims shall be subject to the grievance and arbitration procedure . . . as the sole and exclusive remedy for violations.” * * *

The Supreme Court’s determination to grant that branch of the defendants’ motion which was, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint was improper. “An agreement to arbitrate is not a defense to an action,” and “[t]hus, it may not be the basis for a motion to dismiss” … . However, upon granting that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to compel arbitration pursuant to CPLR 7503(a), the court should have stayed the action …, the order granting a motion to compel “shall operate to stay a pending . . . action.” Wilson v PBM, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 00593, Second Dept 2-3-21

 

,

PLAINTIFF, A PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEE, WAS TERMINATED FOR MARIJUANA USE; QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER AN ACCOMMODATION FOR PLAINTIFF AS A MEDICAL MARIJUANA PATIENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined there are questions of fact about whether plaintiff probationary employee was entitled to accommodation under the Human Rights Law (HRL). She was terminated for marijuana use. However, the marijuana use was a treatment for an illness, irritable bowel disease (IBD):

… [T]here are issues of fact, for purposes of plaintiff’s claim for failure to accommodate under the State Human Rights Law (HRL), as to whether defendant adequately engaged in a cooperative dialogue with plaintiff …. to determine whether it could reasonably accommodate her status as a medical marijuana patient (see PHL 3369[2]). Notably, questions of fact exist as to whether defendant improperly cut the dialogue process short when it discovered that plaintiff was a probationary employee, and refused to consider accommodating her — as it regularly did for permanent employees — by, for example, giving her discipline short of termination, or simply overlooking the one-time technical violation in light of her contemporaneously acquired status as a medical marijuana patient … . …

The State HRL defines status as a medical marijuana patient as a protected disability, but the City HRL does not. Although the City HRL must be construed liberally to ensure maximum protection … , certification as a medical marijuana patient is (other than as specified for purposes of claims under the State HRL) a legal classification. It is not a “physical, medical, mental, or psychological impairment,” which is how disabilities are defined under the City HRL (Administrative Code § 8-102).

Nevertheless, plaintiff’s IBD, is a physical impairment and thus a disability under the City HRL. Accordingly, issues of fact exist as to whether defendant should have permitted plaintiff to treat her IBD through the medical use of marijuana, as a reasonable accommodation. Gordon v Consolidated Edison Inc.,2021 NY Slip Op 00492, First Dept 1-28-21

 

,

PLAINTIFF POLICE OFFICER RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT IN THIS EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CASE ALLEGING AN ANTI-GAY HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff police officer’s employment discrimination complaint should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff is a gay man and the complaint alleged actionable discrimination claims under the New York State and New York City Human Rights Law (HRL):

… [P]laintiff was … exposed to two sergeants who quickly surmised, based on [plaintiff’s] responses to their constant homophobic slurs directed at civilians and gay officers, that plaintiff was gay. Other officers joined in, condoned and encouraged by the sergeants, and plaintiff thereafter endured over a year of homophobic derision, harassment, and verbal abuse. The foregoing establishes a claim for employment discrimination, via hostile work environment, under the State and City HRLs … .

… [P]laintiff was repeatedly required to enter a holding cell, by himself, with prisoners still inside, while plaintiff carried metal and wooden cleaning implements. This was potentially dangerous, as plaintiff could have been overwhelmed and attacked by the prisoners.

… .Plaintiff was also required to go on foot patrol alone during the midnight shift in dangerous areas at the 77th Precinct; other officers patrolled with partners. Doe v New York City Police Dept., 2021 NY Slip Op 00009, First Dept 1-5-21

 

,

PLAINTIFF RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT HIS SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND RETALIATION CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had raised questions of fact on his sexual harassment and retaliation causes of action against his employer:

[Re: sexual harassment] Plaintiff testified that his supervisor, defendant Hall, made repeated sexual advances towards him, including reaching out to touch his face and holding his hand in an elevator while they were alone. She also initiated conversations that made him uncomfortable, telling him she had a “crush” on him, telling him she was single and twice inviting him to her home to repair “a hole” in her apartment. In one conversation, plaintiff claimed Hall said she had a tattoo, adding that “You have to undress me to see it.” Plaintiff further testified that after he rebuffed Hall’s sexual advances, she repeatedly brought him to the Human Resources manager’s office to complain about his work product and that she solicited complaints about him from other coworkers. Plaintiff claims that he complained to HR about Hall’s behavior in December. In January he was told that either he could resign or he would be fired. * * *

[Re: retaliation] Defendants submitted evidence of complaints about plaintiff’s brash demeanor, insensitive comments to coworkers, and poor work ethic, which demonstrate his difficulties following orders and getting along with his peers. By doing so, defendants satisfied their prima facie burden. In opposition, plaintiff relies on Hall’s offensive conduct, including her telling him, in sum and substance, that if they could not be together then plaintiff could not work around Hall, and defendants’ failure to adequately investigate his claims prior to his termination. Plaintiff’s assertions raise disputed issues of fact about whether there was a mixed motive to terminate his employment … . Franco v Hyatt Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 07522, First Dept 12-15-20

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE WAS FIRED AFTER REJECTING THE SEXUAL ADVANCES OF HER MANAGER IN THIS HUMAN RIGHTS LAW EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO DISCLOSURE OF THE RECORDS OF OTHER EMPLOYEES WHO ENGAGED IN THE CONDUCT FOR WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS OSTENSIBLY FIRED (TARDINESS) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this New York State and New York City Human Rights Law action (alleging plaintiff was terminated after rejecting the sexual advances of her manager) was entitled to the records of other employees who engaged in the conduct for which plaintiff was ostensibly fired (tardiness):

“A plaintiff can establish a prima facie case of discrimination in employment by showing that ‘(1) [he or] she is a member of a protected class; (2) [he or] she was qualified to hold the position; (3) [he or] she was terminated from employment . . .; and (4) the discharge . . . occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination'” … . “‘A showing of disparate treatment—that is, a showing that the employer treated plaintiff less favorably than a similarly situated employee outside [of] his protected group—is a recognized method of raising an inference of discrimination for purposes of making out a prima facie case'” … . “Whether two employees are similarly situated ordinarily presents a question of fact for the jury” … . When plaintiffs seek to draw inferences of discrimination by showing that they were similarly situated in all material respects to the individuals to whom they compare themselves, their circumstances need not be identical, but there should be a reasonably close resemblance of facts and circumstances” … . The key is that they be “similar in significant respects” … . …

Since the plaintiff alleges disparate treatment and seeks to raise an inference of discrimination, she is entitled to discovery of documents regarding other employees who engaged in conduct similar to that for which she was terminated, as such documents may indicate that some or all of those employees were not terminated and may have been disciplined less severely or not at all … . Diaz v Minhas Constr. Corp., LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 06496, Second Dept 11-12-20

 

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