Bar-Tur v. Arience Capital Management, L.P.
490 F. App'x 392
2d Cir.2012Background
- Bar-Tur was a senior analyst and limited partner at Arience until her November 2008 termination.
- She sued in district court alleging Arience owed management and incentive fees and discriminated/retaliated against her under the ADA and state/local law.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Arience, dismissing all claims.
- The court held NY Labor Law § 193 claim failed as incentive compensation tied to Arience’s profits.
- The court held the breach-of-contract interpretation of
- ]}]}{
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| NY Labor Law § 193 claim viability | Bar-Tur contends fees were payable as incentive compensation. | Arience argues fees were profit-based and not covered by § 193. | Claim rejected; remanded for contract construction. |
| Contract interpretation of 'received' vs 'earned' | Bar-Tur was entitled to a share of fees paid during her tenure even if earned before. | Using 'received' means fees earned during tenure only. | Ambiguous term; remand to consider extrinsic evidence. |
| Discrimination under ADA and state/local law | Medical condition CVID impacted major life activities; evidence supports discrimination. | Demotion/discharge based on work performance; no substantial limitation proven. | Sufficient evidence created trial issue. |
| Retaliation claim | Timing and sequence show retaliation for health issues. | Evidence insufficient to show causation beyond timing. | Evidence creates a triable issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Truelove v. Ne. Capital & Advisory, 95 N.Y.2d 220 (N.Y. 2000) (incentive compensation linked to profitability falls outside § 193)
- Revson v. Cinque & Cinque, P.C., 221 F.3d 59 (2d Cir. 2000) (ambiguous contract language; extrinsic evidence governs)
- Seiden Assocs., Inc. v. ANC Holdings, Inc., 959 F.2d 425 (2d Cir. 1992) (extrinsic evidence and intent control contract interpretation)
- St. Pierre v. Dyer, 208 F.3d 394 (2d Cir. 2000) (summary judgment limits on weighing evidence)
- Slattery v. Swiss Reinsurance Am. Corp., 248 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2001) (timing not sole basis for retaliation claim)
- El Sayed v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 627 F.3d 931 (2d Cir. 2010) (retaliation evidenced by timing and events)
- Wilson v. Nw. Mut. Ins. Co., 625 F.3d 54 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary judgment standard; no genuine dispute of material fact)