Lore v. City of Syracuse
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1954
| 2d Cir. | 2012Background
- Lore, a Syracuse Police Department sergeant, alleged gender discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and NY HRL, plus §1983 claims, arising from her removal as SPD Public Information Officer in 1999 and subsequent transfers.
- Arising disputes included disputes over overtime, a 1999 settlement with the City, and Lore’s complaints to the EEOC and union; Lore copied overtime pay stubs to document disparities.
- The district court granted summary judgment dismissing most HRL/Title VII discrimination claims against individuals and the City, finding no adverse employment action and time-bar issues, while allowing HRL retaliation claims to proceed.
- A jury trial resulted in a verdict for Lore against the City for 250,000 in compensatory damages; finds in Lore’s favor against Guy on HRL §1983 retaliation but with qualified immunity, and dismisses other individual defendants.
- Lore was awarded a total of 417,955.34, including 167,955.34 in attorneys’ fees; the City appeals arguing legal/summary judgment errors and excessive emotional-distress damages, while Lore cross-appeals on several grounds including HRL discrimination claims and damages.
- The Second Circuit partially vacates and remands: affirming most City-wide results, but conditionally vacating dismissal of Lore’s HRL removal claims against Bernardi and the City and ordering consideration of retrial/remittitur to avoid duplicative damages if discrimination claims are tried.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reputational damages were recoverable | Lore | City | Reputational damages recoverable; not preserved for JMOL; permissible under EEOC guidance |
| Qualified immunity for Guy on Lore’s HRL claim | Lore | City | Guy not entitled to HRL qualified immunity; HRL claim survives against Guy |
| SRJ/summary judgment on Lore's HRL discrimination claims | Lore | City | District court erred in dismissing HRL discrimination claims; trial warranted |
| Whether the jury instruction and verdict form properly framed retaliation/causation | Lore | City | Instructions were proper; compound questions not reversible error |
| Damages for emotional distress | Lore | City | Jury award of 150,000 not automatically excessive; remittitur/ retrial considered on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (retaliation damages extend beyond employment actions)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1982) (qualified immunity framework for public officials)
- Mon v. City of New York, 78 N.Y.2d 311 (N.Y. 1991) (state-law immunity and municipal liability concepts)
- Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (U.S. 1985) (official-capacity suits and policy‑oriented liability)
- Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, 381 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2004) (emotional distress damages under HRL/Title VII context)