Velazco v. Columbus Citizens Foundation
778 F.3d 409
2d Cir.2015Background
- Hugo Velazco appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing his age-discrimination claims under the ADEA and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL).
- The district court exercised pendent jurisdiction and disposed of the NYCHRL claim on the merits alongside the federal ADEA claim.
- The Second Circuit previously addressed differences in NYCHRL interpretation following the 2005 Local Civil Rights Restoration Act, which requires independent, liberal construction of the NYCHRL.
- The district court found that age was not a motivating factor in Velazco’s termination, but did not clearly apply the NYCHRL’s distinct standard when doing so.
- The panel affirmed the ADEA portion in a separate order but vacated and remanded the NYCHRL dismissal because the required independent NYCHRL analysis was not undertaken.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly applied the NYCHRL standard | Velazco argued his NYCHRL claim should be analyzed independently and might succeed under the broader NYC standard | Defendants argued the district court effectively applied the NYCHRL standard by finding no motivating role for age | Vacated and remanded: district court failed to analyze the NYCHRL claim separately and independently as required by the Restoration Act |
| Whether NYCHRL claims may be treated coextensively with federal/state claims | Velazco argued NYCHRL must be construed broadly and independently | Defendants urged reliance on federal/state-law analysis where similar | Court reaffirmed that NYCHRL requires independent, liberal construction and cannot be collapsed into federal/state standards |
| Standard of causation for NYCHRL vs. ADEA | Velazco contended that NYCHRL permits liability for mixed motives/partial discrimination | Defendants relied on ADEA’s but-for causation (Gross) to defeat claim | Court noted the difference: NYCHRL allows partial/mixed-motive liability; ADEA requires but-for causation, and the district court did not distinguish these standards |
| Proper remedy when court declines independent NYCHRL analysis | Velazco sought remand for proper NYCHRL review | Defendants urged affirmance | Court remanded for further proceedings consistent with independent NYCHRL analysis; ADEA disposition left intact (addressed separately) |
Key Cases Cited
- Mihalik v. Credit Agricole Cheuvreux N. Am., Inc., 715 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2013) (explaining Restoration Act requires independent, broad construction of NYCHRL)
- Loeffler v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp., 582 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2009) (discussing Restoration Act’s ‘floor’ principle and use of federal/state law as minimum)
- Albunio v. City of N.Y., 16 N.Y.3d 472 (N.Y. 2011) (state court ruling that NYCHRL must be construed broadly in favor of discrimination plaintiffs)
- Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (2009) (establishing but-for causation standard for ADEA claims)