Kassapian v. City of New York
155 A.D.3d 851
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Susan Kassapian was an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) at the NYC Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) and sued the City, DCA, and five DCA employees.
- She alleged DCA pressured ALJs to rule for the agency and impose maximum fines; she and other ALJs spoke internally and externally about these practices.
- Kassapian claimed she was subjected to sexual harassment (including a coworker repeatedly demonstrating a sex toy), demoted, overloaded, and more closely scrutinized after complaining; she also alleged a pattern of age discrimination.
- Causes of action included violations of New York State constitutional free speech/petition rights, NYCHRL claims for sex and age discrimination, and NYCHRL retaliation for complaints of sexual harassment and age discrimination.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a); plaintiff moved for leave to amend under CPLR 3025(b) to add a § 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim if state constitutional claims were dismissed. The Supreme Court granted dismissal and denied leave to amend; plaintiff appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sex-based harassment NYCHRL claim was sufficient | Harassment (sex toy demonstration and corroborating affidavit) amounted to actionable sexual harassment | Conduct was petty slights/trivial inconveniences not actionable | Court: Claim survives; conduct not limited to petty slights and affirmative defense cannot be resolved on pre-answer motion |
| Whether age-discrimination NYCHRL claim was sufficient | Alleged disparate treatment and demotion based in part on age | Individual defendants' similar ages undermined claim | Court: Claim survives; allegations of disparate treatment and demotion suffice despite ages of defendants |
| Whether NYCHRL retaliation (for complaining of sexual harassment) was sufficient | After complaint plaintiff faced doubled workload, increased scrutiny, reprimands, and demotion | Adverse actions were not linked to protected complaints or not sufficiently severe | Court: Claim survives; alleged acts reasonably likely to deter protected activity |
| Whether NYCHRL retaliation (for complaining of age discrimination) was sufficient | Plaintiff contends demotion was partly due to age complaints | Plaintiff never alleged she complained about age discrimination | Court: Claim dismissed for failure to allege any age-discrimination complaint |
| Whether state-constitutional claims valid without a notice of claim | Constitutional claims vindicate plaintiff’s rights and should proceed | Plaintiff failed to serve statutorily required notice of claim; public-interest exception inapplicable | Court: State-constitutional claims dismissed for failure to serve notice of claim |
| Whether court should allow amendment to add § 1983 (First Amendment) claim | Proposed § 1983 claim is permissible, not prejudicial, and would survive plausibility review | Amendment unnecessary or premature | Court: Trial court abused discretion by denying leave; amendment to add § 1983 retaliation claim should be allowed |
Key Cases Cited
- Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83 (standards for CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion)
- Rushaid v. Pictet & Cie, 28 N.Y.3d 316 (courts may consider plaintiff affidavits to cure pleading defects)
- Chanko v. American Broadcasting Cos., Inc., 27 N.Y.3d 46 (same)
- Nelson v. HSBC Bank USA, 87 A.D.3d 995 (sexual-harassment under NYCHRL can include hostile conduct)
- Williams v. New York City Hous. Auth., 61 A.D.3d 62 (retaliation and affirmative defenses under NYCHRL)
- 423 S. Salina St. v. Syracuse, 68 N.Y.2d 474 (notice-of-claim requirement and public-interest exception)
- Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131 (notice-of-claim rules do not bar § 1983 suits)
- Lane v. Franks, 134 S. Ct. 2369 (public-employee speech on matters of public concern may be protected)