948 F. Supp. 2d 300
W.D.N.Y.2013Background
- Plaintiff Theresa Wilson-Riehardson sues RTS, Griffith, and Tunaitis alleging disability, race, color, sex discrimination, and retaliation under ADA, NYHRL, and Title VII.
- Plaintiff’s July 2, 2007 NYSDHR/EEOC charge alleged disability discrimination; NYSDHR found probable cause but plaintiff sought dismissal for convenience to sue RTS civilly.
- Plaintiff’s July 17, 2008 NYSDHR charge alleged race/color/sex discrimination and retaliation; NYSDHR found no probable cause, issued a 90-day right-to-sue letter, and no civil action was filed for these claims until now.
- Tunaitis was dismissed because individuals lacking ownership/authority in a business are not liable as employers under Title VII/ADA/NYHRL.
- Court lacks jurisdiction over retaliation and race/sex discrimination claims under NY Exec. Law § 297(9); exhaustion issue precludes claims not reasonably related to the July 2, 2007 disability charge.
- Cross-motion to amend denied; remaining live claims are disability discrimination and failure to accommodate under ADA/NYHRL against RTS and Griffith.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tunaitis can be sued personally under Title VII/ADA/NYHRL. | Wilson-Riehardson asserts claims against Tunaitis. | Tunaitis lacks employment authority and personal liability; not an employer. | Tunaitis dismissed. |
| Whether RTS and Griffith claims of retaliation and race/sex discrimination are subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. | Alleges delay in medical retirement as retaliation and race/sex discrimination. | NY Exec. Law § 297(9) bars claims already decided by NYSDHR. | Claims dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. |
| Whether plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies for race/sex discrimination claims. | Disability charge is related to later claims; should exhaust. | No reasonable relation; not exhaustively related. | Claims dismissed for failure to exhaust. |
| Whether plaintiff’s motion to amend should be granted. | Amendment would amplify claims. | Amendment would be futile for unexhausted/untimely claims. | Motion to amend denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arculeo v. On-Site Sales & Marketing, LLC, 425 F.3d 193 (2d Cir. 2005) (employer liability and scope of claims under Title VII/ADA)
- Tomka v. Seiler Corp., 66 F.3d 1295 (2d Cir. 1995) (personal liability under Title VII/ADA required employer status)
- York v. Ass’n of the Bar of the City of New York, 286 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2002) (election-of-remedies and exhaustion principles under NY law and federal law)