101 A.D.3d 924
N.Y. App. Div.2012Background
- Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under CPLR 3211(a)(7) before joinder of issue.
- The Supreme Court granted dismissal of the seventh cause of action (Civil Rights Law § 79-i) and converted related branches to a summary judgment motion addressing first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and eighth causes of action.
- After additional submissions, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and eighth causes of action.
- Plaintiffs contend a private right of action exists under Civil Rights Law § 79-i; the court rejected this view and dismissed the seventh cause of action.
- The court did not allow discovery for the converted summary judgment motion and denied an opportunity to develop facts, given the posture and standards relied on.
- The court addressed merits: dismissals of discrimination (Executive Law § 296(1)(a); Administrative Code § 8-107(1)(a)), retaliation (Executive Law § 296(7); Administrative Code § 8-107(7)), and intentional infliction of emotional distress (EIID). It also dismissed discrimination claims under the New York Constitution, article I, § 11, and found remaining arguments meritless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Private right of action under Civil Rights Law § 79-i | Pls contend § 79-i provides private rights. | Defs argue no private right of action exists. | No private right of action exists. |
| Discovery in converted summary judgment | Plaintiff seeks discovery before summary judgment. | Discovery not required or appropriate here. | Court properly granted summary judgment without discovery. |
| Third and fifth causes: discrimination under Executive Law § 296(1)(a) and Admin Code § 8-107(1)(a) | Discrimination occurred; facts show adverse action and pretext. | Defendants show no adverse action; reasons nondiscriminatory; no triable issue. | Summary judgment for defendants; no triable issue. |
| Fourth and sixth causes: retaliation under Executive Law § 296(7) and Admin Code § 8-107(7) | Protected activity occurred and actions were retaliatory. | No adverse action tied to protected activity; no retaliation demonstrated. | Summary judgment for defendants; no triable issue. |
| Eighth cause and first cause: intentional infliction of emotional distress and NY Constitution discrimination | Extremely outrageous conduct; discrimination claim under NY Constitution. | No extreme outrageous conduct; no constitutional discrimination violated. | Eighth and first causes dismissed; no triable issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (U.S. 1998) (whether adverse action constitutes actionable discrimination under Title VII)
- White v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co., 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (burden-shifting framework for retaliation claims)
- Fletcher v. Dakota, Inc., 99 A.D.3d 43 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012) (prima facie showing and burden on retaliation arguments)
- Bennett v. Health Mgt. Sys., Inc., 92 A.D.3d 29 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011) (evidentiary showing for discrimination defense)
- Melman v. Montefiore Med. Ctr., 98 A.D.3d 107 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012) (pretext and discrimination analysis in NY courts)
- Albunio v. City of New York, 16 N.Y.3d 472 (2011) (state constitutional discrimination standards)
- Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 N.Y.3d 295 (2004) (standard for retaliation and adverse action considerations)
- Rovello v. Orofino Realty Co., 40 N.Y.2d 633 (1976) (discovery and summary judgment prerequisites principles)
- Uhr v. East Greenbush Cent. School Dist., 94 N.Y.2d 32 (1999) (narrowing of civil rights claims and executive law considerations)