Estate of Hamilton v. City of New York, 627 F.3d 50

Plaintiffs Hanna, Elsharouny, Naik, and Hamilton worked in NYC PD Crime Lab as Criminalists III-Supervisor; they received supervisory duties without title or pay increase.
In 2005 two Criminalist IV positions were created; O'Neill, supervising the section, hired Johnson and Hickey (both white, American-born) without broad advertising or interviews.
After promotions, the remaining five Criminalists III-Supervisor (including Casella) lost supervisory duties as Johnson/Hickey assumed supervisory roles, while salaries and titles stayed the same.
Plaintiffs filed EEO/OEEO complaint and later EEOC charges alleging discrimination; district court later granted summary judgment against them on discrimination and Labor Law claims, and dismissed some claims as abandoned.
Another Criminalist IV position was filled in 2007 through internal advertising and formal interviews; plaintiffs Hanna, Elsharouny, and Naik applied but did not advance; a white, American-born male was promoted.
This appeal challenges the district court rulings on discrimination and Labor Law claims, and raises evidentiary issues; the court affirms in part and remands on the Labor Law issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prima facie failure-to-promote established	Hanna/Elsharouny/Naik asserted national-origin/sex discrimination in promotions	Promotions given to others with better performance; Casella first choice for 2005; Casella and others had stronger qualifications	Summary judgment upheld; no evidence of discriminatory motivation
Demotion based on supervisory duties	Demotions aimed at eliminating Criminalist III-Supervisor roles targeted plaintiffs	Demotions justified by reduced need for supervision after promotions; Casella similarly affected; not targeted	Summary judgment upheld; no evidence of discriminatory intent
Labor Law § 190(3) exemption affirmative defense	Labor Law claims should proceed; government exemption not affirmative defense asserted	§ 190(3) exempts government entities; defense must be pleaded as affirmative defense under Rule 8(c)	Exemption must be affirmatively pleaded; remanded to consider amendment; district court may entertain defense at summary judgment stage if appropriate

Spiegel v. Schulmann, 604 F.3d 72 (2d Cir.2010) (reliance on admissible evidence for summary judgment; evidentiary ruling reviewed de novo)
Lust v. Sealy, Inc., 383 F.3d 580 (7th Cir.2004) (subsequent remedial measures rule; admissibility differences by context)
Paolitto v. Brown E. & C., Inc., 151 F.3d 60 (2d Cir.1998) (district court's discretion to consider EEOC findings; not abuse of discretion)
Sims v. Blot, 534 F.3d 117 (2d Cir.2008) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary decisions)
Mack v. United States, 814 F.2d 120 (2d Cir.1987) (affidavits contradicting prior deposition must be disregarded)
Oden v. Oktibbeha County, 246 F.3d 458 (5th Cir.2001) (affirmative pleading of exemptions under Title VII context)
Byrnie v. Town of Cromwell Bd. of Educ., 243 F.3d 93 (2d Cir.2001) (emphasizes focus on performance over unproven concerns)
Saks v. Franklin Covey Co., 316 F.3d 337 (2d Cir.2003) (affirmative defenses at summary judgment; prejudice considerations)