Luo v. AIK Renovation Inc.
1:23-cv-05878
S.D.N.Y.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Shixuan Luo, a Chinese employee and the first Asian managerial hire at AIK Renovation Inc., claimed he was unlawfully terminated due to discrimination.
- Luo was fired by AIK's President, Steve Nejasmic, after several months of employment; Nejasmic cited poor performance and a safety incident as grounds for termination.
- Plaintiff presented evidence including a recording of his termination and alleged inconsistent explanations from Nejasmic, but the only potential racial comment was by another employee, not Nejasmic.
- A jury found in favor of the defendants on all claims, and Luo moved for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a), citing issues such as alleged perjury, weight of the evidence, faulty jury instructions, exclusion of evidence, and attorney misconduct.
- Luo also challenged the dismissal of his unpaid wages claim under New York Labor Law and court-imposed time limits at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Verdict contrary to evidence | Weight of evidence shows discrimination or perjury by Nejasmic; verdict against evidence | Sufficient evidence supports jury's verdict | Sufficient evidence supports defense; verdict stands |
| Erroneous jury charge | Instructions on pretext and mixed motives were insufficient/misleading | Instructions closely tracked legal standards | Instructions were proper and issues were waived |
| Dismissal of wage claim | Unpaid wages claim was dismissed erroneously given some testimony; court should have allowed late evidence | No admissible evidence of hours worked for calculation | Proper dismissal; speculation cannot support damages |
| Attorney misconduct and trial limits | Defense counsel unfairly undermined plaintiff; time limits prejudiced case | Proper advocacy; court has discretion to set limits | No misconduct or prejudice warranting new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (factfinder’s disbelief of employer's explanation can permit inference of discrimination, but does not compel it)
- Carlton v. Mystic Transp., Inc., 202 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2000) (timing and circumstances of hiring/termination relevant to discrimination inference)
- Grochowski v. Phoenix Const., 318 F.3d 80 (2d Cir. 2003) (speculation insufficient for unpaid wage calculation under federal and state labor law)