Eugene Margerum v. City of Buffalo, 24 N.Y.3d 721

Background

In 1974 the U.S. sued the City of Buffalo alleging the civil-service exam for entry-level firefighters and police had a disparate impact; a remedial decree followed and was largely affirmed on appeal.
MOCHA (Members of Color Helping All) brought federal class suits (MOCHA I and II) challenging promotional exams in 1998 and 2002; those federal actions produced litigation over test validity and potential disparate-impact liability.
While MOCHA I and II were pending, 12 white Buffalo firefighters sued in state court claiming reverse racial discrimination under the New York Human Rights Law after City Human Resources Commissioner Matarese allowed promotional eligibility lists to expire early (2005–2006), allegedly costing them promotions.
The City moved to dismiss for failure to file a General Municipal Law §50‑i notice of claim; Supreme Court denied dismissal and granted plaintiffs summary judgment on liability; Appellate Division and Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment before this Court review.
After Ricci v. DeStefano, parties renewed motions; the state courts applied Ricci’s “strong basis in evidence” standard and found the City lacked such a basis, but this Court held that whether the City met that standard presents factual issues not appropriate for summary disposition.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a General Municipal Law notice of claim was required for a Human Rights Law suit against the City	Plaintiffs: no notice required because Human Rights Law claims are not torts and not within §§50‑e/50‑i notice scheme	City: §50‑i requires notice for suits against municipalities to allow investigation and early resolution	Court: No notice-of-claim requirement — §§50‑e/50‑i do not cover Human Rights Law claims; plaintiffs need not file notice
Whether Ricci’s “strong basis in evidence” standard governs and liability could be decided on summary judgment	Plaintiffs: Ricci applies and City lacked a strong basis in evidence, so liability is established as a matter of law	City: factual record about motives, expert advice, and pending federal litigation creates disputed issues; summary judgment inappropriate	Court: Ricci governs, but whether the City had a strong basis in evidence at the time is a factual question; summary judgment on liability was improper
Whether the City’s contemporaneous knowledge/intent can be supplemented by later/evolving litigation positions	Plaintiffs: City’s later statements and litigation posture show lack of legitimate justification	City: its motives and reliance on expert advice at the time are factual and credibility-based; after-acquired explanations cannot substitute for what was known at the decision time	Court: Credibility and what the City knew when it acted are factual issues; after‑acquired evidence cannot be dispositive—remit for further proceedings

Key Cases Cited

Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (employer must have a strong basis in evidence before taking race‑conscious action to avoid disparate‑impact liability)
United States v. City of Buffalo, 457 F. Supp. 612 (district court remedial decree finding pattern or practice of discrimination)
United States v. City of Buffalo, 633 F.2d 643 (Second Circuit review of remedial decree)
United States v. Brennan, 650 F.3d 65 (Ricci requires evaluating what employer knew at decision time; caution against relying on after‑acquired evidence)
Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 N.Y.3d 295 (New York Human Rights Law standards generally align with federal law)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden‑shifting framework in employment discrimination cases)
St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (intent and credibility often turn on factual findings)
Margerum v. City of Buffalo, 83 A.D.3d 1575 (Appellate Division decision affirming liability determination below)