Federal Court Adopts Broad Scope for Claims under New York State and City Human Rights Laws
Posted: February 8, 2010
The New York State and New York City Human Rights laws provide for significant remedies for prevailing plaintiffs. Unlimited compensatory damages are available under State law and unlimited compensatory damages, unlimited punitive damages and attorneys’ fees are available under City law. Further, the New York City Council has legislated that the City law is to be interpreted expansively in order to provide greater protections for employees than exist under federal or state law.
Only New York employees, it was thought, could avail themselves of rights under State or City law, since complainants would have to demonstrate that the impact of an alleged discriminatory decision was felt in New York. A New York State appellate court, however, has interpreted the law’s protections more broadly, holding that as long as the alleged discriminatory decision was made in the State or City, an aggrieved individual could assert a claim under these laws in New York, even if the individual did not work or provide services in New York. Hoffman v. Parade Publ’n, 2009 NY Slip Op 3678 (N.Y. App. Div. May 7, 2009). (See Out-of-State Employee May Sue NY Employer for Discrimination Under State and City Human Rights Laws.)
Now, the Hoffman court’s logic has been adopted by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. See Rohn Padmore Inc. v. LC Play Inc. d/b/a LaQue Clothing, No. 06-cv-00498 (SDNY Jan. 11, 2010).
The plaintiff in Rohn Padmore provided public relations and related services for a clothing manufacturer based in New York City. These services generally were performed in Los Angeles. The company terminated plaintiff via an e-mail sent by the defendant’s sole shareholder who is based in New York City.
The plaintiff asserted that he was unlawfully terminated under New York State and City law due to the perception that he was homosexual. The company argued that the “impact” rule should be applied and the causes of action dismissed since the impact of any alleged discrimination was felt in Los Angeles as opposed to New York City or New York State. The defendant based its arguments on earlier federal court decisions applying the “impact” principle.
Unfortunately for New York employers with multi-state operations, the Court rejected the defendant’s argument. Quoting Hoffman, the District Court stated, “[L]ogic and common sense alone [] dictate that if an employer located in New York made discriminatory hiring or firing decisions, those decisions would be properly viewed as discriminatory acts occurring within the boundaries of New York…. [Further], it would be contrary to the purpose of both [the NYSHRL and NYCHRL] to leave it to the courts of other jurisdictions to appropriately respond to acts of discrimination that occurred here.”
This decision highlights that New York State and City employers must take into account the expansive protections of State and City law when making employment decisions. If such decisions are made in New York State or City, they may be actionable here under State or City law, regardless of the location of the employee. Further, employers with decision-making operations in New York should ensure that any waiver agreements cover claims under New York State and City law.
Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to assist employers in all aspects of workplace law.
