Betty L. Kimmel v. State of New York
29 N.Y.3d 386
| NY | 2017Background
- Betty Kimmel, a New York State Trooper (1980–1994), sued the State in 1995 under the Human Rights Law for sex discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliation, and hostile work environment, seeking damages and injunctive relief.
- Throughout her employment she reported pervasive harassment (lewd cartoons, sexual propositions, physical assault); internal complaints and hearings failed to stop the misconduct.
- During lengthy litigation the State engaged in repeated discovery abuses and delay; the Appellate Division struck the State defendants’ answers as sanctions and Kimmel later obtained a jury award of over $700,000.
- Kimmel’s counsel sought attorneys’ fees and costs under New York’s Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA, CPLR art 86); Supreme Court denied fees, holding EAJA did not apply to compensatory-damage suits against the State.
- The Appellate Division reversed; the Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division, holding that EAJA’s phrase “any civil action” includes Human Rights Law suits against the State brought in Supreme Court (pre-2015 HRL amendment).
- The Court grounded its decision on the EAJA’s plain language, remedial purpose, legislative history, and a harmonizing construction of the statutory phrase “proceeding brought to seek judicial review.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EAJA authorizes fee awards to a prevailing plaintiff in a Supreme Court Human Rights Law action against the State seeking monetary relief | Kimmel: EAJA applies to “any civil action” against the State, so fees and costs are recoverable in HRL employment suits brought in Supreme Court | State: EAJA is limited to actions seeking judicial review of agency action (e.g., CPLR article 78 and similar equitable relief), and does not cover plenary compensatory-damages suits | Court: EAJA covers this case — “any civil action” includes HRL suits in Supreme Court; fees may be awarded for cases commenced before the 2015 HRL amendment |
| Interpretation of phrase “proceeding brought to seek judicial review” in CPLR 8602(a) | Kimmel: phrase clarifies inclusion of judicial-review proceedings but does not limit “any civil action” | State: phrase limits EAJA to judicial-review actions only; otherwise the Court of Claims exclusion would be superfluous | Court: phrase modifies only “proceeding” (i.e., administrative-review-type proceedings); it does not narrow the separate term “any civil action”; reading harmonizes statute with Court of Claims exclusion and EAJA’s federal analogue |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of Malta Town Ctr. I, Ltd. v. Town of Malta Bd. of Assessment Review, 3 N.Y.3d 563 (statutory text is primary evidence of legislative intent)
- Zion v. Kurtz, 50 N.Y.2d 92 (the word “any” means all)
- Koerner v. State of N.Y., Pilgrim Psychiatric Ctr., 62 N.Y.2d 442 (HRL claims for monetary relief may be brought in Supreme Court)
- Matter of Beechwood Restorative Care Ctr. v. Signor, 5 N.Y.3d 435 (EAJA applies where another statute does not already provide fees)
- Matter of Pan Am. World Airways v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 61 N.Y.2d 542 (use of “judicial review” to mean court review without limiting to agency decisions)