6 F. Supp. 3d 238
E.D.N.Y2014Background
- Gary Sass sued MTA Bus asserting retaliation under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) after his 2009 termination; a jury in June 2013 found for Sass and awarded back pay and front pay.
- Four days after the verdict the Supreme Court decided University of Texas Southwestern Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, holding Title VII retaliation requires but‑for causation rather than the motivating‑factor standard.
- MTA moved for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial based on Nassar; the district court granted a new trial for the Title VII claim, and denied Plaintiffs post‑trial equitable relief as moot.
- Sass moved for reconsideration arguing the NYCHRL claim was unaffected by Nassar and therefore the jury’s verdict could be sustained at least as to city law; the court granted reconsideration.
- On reconsideration the court: (1) adhered to its grant of a new trial on Title VII, (2) held Nassar’s but‑for standard applies to NYSHRL and therefore ordered a new trial on state law, and (3) held the NYCHRL motivating‑factor standard was unchanged by Nassar and therefore denied a new trial on the city claim.
- The court denied reinstatement (awarded front pay instead), adjusted back pay (offset by unemployment benefits reimbursed by MTA), awarded prejudgment interest, ordered pension credit restoration, and awarded attorneys’ fees and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nassar’s but‑for causation applies retroactively to this case (Title VII) | Sass argued any error was harmless because jury evidence satisfied but‑for standard | MTA argued Nassar changed the law and the motivating‑factor instruction was erroneous | Court: Nassar applies retroactively; granted new trial on Title VII (prior ruling adhered to) |
| Whether Nassar changes causation standard for NYSHRL | Sass contended NYSHRL distinct but did not press that it adopts different causation post‑Nassar | MTA argued NYSHRL parallels Title VII and should adopt Nassar’s but‑for rule | Court: NYSHRL interpreted consistently with Title VII post‑Nassar; ordered new trial on NYSHRL |
| Whether Nassar changes causation standard for NYCHRL | Sass argued NYCHRL is independent and retains motivating‑factor standard | MTA argued textual similarity means Nassar should apply to NYCHRL too | Court: NYCHRL retains motivating‑factor standard; denied new trial as to NYCHRL claim (verdict stands on city claim) |
| Reinstatement vs. front pay (equitable relief) | Sass sought reinstatement (equitable remedy) post‑trial; jury awarded front pay | MTA argued Sass waived reinstatement by not listing it in pretrial order and by submitting front pay to the jury; also cited animosity and misconduct | Court: No waiver; court retains equitable power, but reinstatement denied on merits due to breach of trust/credibility concerns; front pay of $106,000 awarded |
| Back pay: amount and offsets | Sass sought increase; opposed offset for unemployment under collateral source rule | MTA sought offset of $18,630 because it reimbursed State for unemployment payments | Court: Declined to alter jury back pay amount; applied offset because MTA effectively paid benefits by reimbursement — net back pay $233,670; awarded prejudgment interest at 4% from reasonable intermediate date |
| Attorneys’ fees and costs under NYCHRL | Sass sought fees ($97,560) at specified rates and costs | MTA challenged hourly rates and documentation | Court: Applied forum rule and contemporaneous records; adjusted rates (e.g., lead counsel $425/hr) and awarded $99,210 in fees and $3,109.21 in costs |
Key Cases Cited
- University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517 (U.S. 2013) (Title VII retaliation requires but‑for causation)
- Mihalik v. Credit Agricole Cheuvreux N. Am., Inc., 715 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2013) (NYCHRL should be construed liberally and independently from federal law)
- Kelly v. Howard I. Shapiro & Assocs. Consulting Eng’rs, P.C., 716 F.3d 10 (2d Cir. 2013) (historical rule that Title VII and NYSHRL retaliation standards are identical)
- Promisel v. First Am. Artificial Flowers, Inc., 943 F.2d 251 (2d Cir. 1991) (collateral source reasoning in back pay awards)
- Aurecchione v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 98 N.Y.2d 21 (N.Y. 2002) (prejudgment interest awarded to make victims whole under Human Rights Law)