Barbara Girard v. 94th Street and Fifth Avenue Corporation

WATERMAN, Bеfore OAKES and MESKILL, Judges. Circuit MESKILL, Circuit Judge: This appeal is an from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District York, of New Robert Ward, J. District Judge, granting de- fendants’ motion for summary judgment by dismissing plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. 19831 claim for failure to establish the necessary action,” “state dismissing plaintiff’s 42 1985(3)2 U.S.C. § claim be- cause did not establish the ac- tionable “conspiracy” required, and dis- missing plaintiff’s pendent state claim. Girard v. 94th Street and Fifth Avenue Corp., 396 F.Supp. (S.D.N.Y., 1. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 reads: highway premises another, or on the for depriving, directly either or who, any “Every person under color of indirectly, any person persons or class of custom, ordinаnce, statute, regulation, laws, or us- equal protection equal or of Territory, subjects, age, any or or privileges State laws; and immunities under subjected, any citizen of the any to be causes case of set forth jur- person section, or other within United States persons in this if one or more en- any deprivation do, to the gaged done, isdiction thereof any therein or cause to be rights, privileges, or immunities secured object act in furtherance of the of such con- laws, spiracy, shall be liable to whereby the Constitution and injured in his law, injured party in an'action at suit in property, dеprived having or or proper proceeding equity, exercising any or other for privilege States, party dress.” citizen of the United so injured deprived may have an action for pertinent part 2. The recovery damages, occasioned reads: injury deprivation, against any such “If or more State two conspirators.” or more of the disguise Territory conspire go on the during commenced its marriage, plain- own ac- (“Action 2”) tion # purchased possession

tiff’s former husband eviction because of the unauthorized as- shares stock from 94th Street and signment pay and the failure Corporation (“the Fifth Avenue mainte- corpora- tion”), granted nance costs. The state manager the owner and of a coop- apartment summary erative fendant’s motion for building judgment in New York City. finding of in Action # part transaction, As that that the consent Mr. provision the Girard obtained of lease was proprietary lease enforceable to of under state law that “the building. coopera- fourth floor apartment Stock tive corporation right Certificate contains a had the restriction represented that the shares to refuse to thereby may tо consent of transfer plaintiff be sold to the the lease to corporation any or for reason to an assignee proprietary of deemed satisfactory to it (except, after of course, compliance provisions prohibited by with certain those of the Civil lease, Laws).” proprietary required Appellate Division, that Mr. Department, Girard obtain the First written affirmed the order consent of judgment. board of directors 46 any before A.D.2d 362 assign- N.Y. ment (1974). of his 405 apartment interest in the S.2d Plaintiff’s motion for effective; appeal could become leave to tо in the the New York event Court of Appeals a violation was denied. restriction, of this the corpo- ration could terminate the lease. suit, Plaintiff then instituted this as part separation alleging that defendant agree- defendants, ment and the between individual offi- husband, her its Mr. assigned directors, Girard cers and board of his her interest violated apartment rights under 42 in lieu U.S.C. of alimony; fusing the separation agreement assignment consent to the was incorpo- rated into the lease judgment solely because she female. divorce granted later also year. No She con- consent to assignment spired from the to deprive board of her of her civil directors had sex, been solicited or because of her received. violation When plaintiff subsequently requested 1985(3). Finally, plaintiff U.S.C. § al- she be recognized leged as the lawful that defendants violated New stockholder tenant, directors, the board 296(5)(a)(l) Executive Law giving reason, (1972).3 no sought refused its Plaintiff consent, rejected a declaration of plaintiff’s rightful demand her stock the stock and be transferred Stephen proprietary injunction pre- from lease and an Girard to Bar- venting bara any wrongful Girard and refused to interference with register the possession on peaceful premises. transfer books of the corporation. Plaintiff then (“Action initiated suit 1”) # Supreme in the Court of New I. Plaintiff’s Claim Under York seeking both a declaration that the corporation’s refusal arbitrary, ca-

pricious, and prevail unreasonable under and an For the order compelling prove she must that the transfer U.S.C. § statute, stock on defendant, any books to under color her and to consent to assignment ordinance, usage an regulation, custom or of the lease. constructed, 296(5)(a)(l) any New York Executive аgent employee or reads: thereof: (1) sell, rent, To refuse to lease or other- “It shall deny discriminatory unlawful wise to any to or person withhold from practice owner, lessee, for sub-lessee, group housing as- such a accom- signee, of, managing agent per- race, creed, color, or other modation because of the having right sell, son origin national per- rent or lease a sex of such housing accommodation, sons.” constructed or to Summarizing prior holdings dealing her of a state, deprived has concept, with the state Su- and laws of Constitution by the seсured has stated that “where the preme Court Adickes v. Kress & States. the United private, for the discrimination is impetus ‘significantly must have in- the State chargeable An act L.Ed.2d itself with invidious discrimina- volved tions,’ necessary element to be is a the state in order ... for the dis- Plaintiff asserts proved. pleaded to fall criminatory action within the am- rendered judgments ‍‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​​‍prohibition.” bit of the constitutional in Action # 1 and Action state Irvis, 107 v. Lodge Moose No. state action # 2 constitute purposes. recognized This Court has judgment can Certainly a state court of a “double standard” of the existence Kraemer, Shellеy action. be state action. In cases involv- review for state 836, 92 L.Ed. 1161 U.S. discrimination, a ing particularly racial meaning if within the must decide We discrimination, class-based offensive 1983 the state court’s scope has used a “less onerous” test than provision of the lease is a enforcement Jackson v. for other claims. See Statler state action of a by deprivation Foundation, (2 496 F.2d 629 plaintiff by to that statute secured 1974); Syracuse University, Weise v. 522 Kraemer, v. Shelley In the Constitution. 1975); (2 F.2d 397 Cir. Barrett v. United 838, the 68 S.Ct. at supra, U.S. (S.D.N.Y., Hospital, F.Supp. the question Court defined be- Supreme Syracuse v. University, In Weise validity as “thе of court enforce- fore it applied 522 F.2d at the court supra, private agreements, generally ment rigorous this less standard to a claim of covenants, as restrictive which described discrimination, although sex the court their the exclusion of have as was careful to note that it was not nec- designated race or color from persons of put to sex discrimination in the essary occupancy prop- of real category as race discrimination same erty.” The white seller in that case had to that case in order do so. property pur- to agrеed to sell a black agreement among contrary chaser to this less burdensome applying Even sought Another owner property owners. standard, court below found the district by seeking the transfer en- prevent here was participation the state’s agreement through of the forcement a disinterested forum. solely provide stating pri- While that the court action. Avenue and Fifth v. 94th Street Girard agreement itself did not vate restrictive F.Supp. at 455. See Corp., supra, rights, violate Fourteenth Amendment Frick, v. 372 F.2d also Stevens agreements purposes where the Chenango 1967). In McGuane (2 Cir. only by judiciаl enforce- were secured ment, (2 Inc., F.2d 1190 Cir. Court participant the state was a within 1970), cert. meaning of the Fourteenth Amend- (1971), this Court Kraemer, Shelley supra, ment. despite some lan “[n]either, noted that posture 836. The U.S. Shelley v. Kraemer guage present significantly case is different in New York be found can state action Shelley, from the situation in however. with the same defendant providing [sic] provision Shelley The contested eviction of a tenant right to secure the discriminatory on its racially face. The gives courts that proceeding in its by here, provision question requir- landlords; thing the one аlmost all ing consent of board of directors be- is that agreed universally now almost effective, fore transfer can landmark deci for that such a rationale neutral; sugges- described as there is no altogether too far-reach sion would any prohibition tion of of transfer of ing.” it cannot be said that Since ownership on the basis of sex. in this case the state’s involvement debt, plaintiff by commencing harassed allegedly discriminatory approves4 legal proceedings of eviction and mali- conduct, we the dismissal affirm telephoned ciously her at unreasonable 1983 claim. court of district annoy hours to harass and her. Defend- ants contend that no can exist Under 42 Claim Plaintiff’s II. case corporation’s in this since the deci- sions were formulated and carried out directors, its board of the individual de- Court, Supreme In 1971 the fendants, all of whom solely acted within Breckinridge, Griffin their capacities. Accepting held plaintiff’s true, allegations as the district private reached certain that § court found that allege failed to conspiracies deprive others of facts sufficient constitute a conspiracy legal rights. A legally sufficient meaning 1985(3). within the of § Girard 1985(3) complaint conspir must aver a v. 94th Street Fifth Corp., Avenue between two more intend supra, at 455. Decisions in deprive any person per ed class of this and other circuits fully support equal protection of the sons the laws district court’s conclusion. of equal privileges and immunities un Dowling, Dombrowski v. der the law and an act of the Cir., 1972), conspirators (7 plaintiff alleged in furtherance con spiracy injured realty and its employee de- deprived exercising any him of space nied him rental many because of privilege of a citizen of the United his clients were members of minority Breckinridge, See Griffin v. su groups. Noting States. only one firm was 102-103, 1790; pra, 403 U.S. at involved and that the individual defend- Brock, Cameron v. (6 473 F.2d scope ant acted within the of his authori- ty agent as firm, for that the Court of Appeals the Seventh Circuit held argues Plaintiff that her complaint requirement satisfies the threshold conspiracy between two or persons. more “ (cid:127) (cid:127) (cid:127) the statutory requirement charged She has both a de- ‘two or more fendant individual defendants who ’ conspire . . . is not by satisfied constitute officers and entire board proof a discriminatory business of directors with conspiring deprive to decision reflects judg- collective sex; her of her civil because of her ment of two or more executives of the the individual defendants are to ” same firm. 459 F.2d at dominate, “wholly operate and control” of all the business and financial affairs Accord, Baker v. Stuart Broadcasting corporation. of Plaintiff claims that Company, part (8 1974); of the conspiracy, 183 Cir. defendants Dunbar, Fallis v. president advised the 386 F.Supp. board of di- (N.D.Ohio, 1974); Cohen v. Illinois rectors Insti deny plaintiff continued occu- tute of Technology, pancy premises, of the permit F.Supp. refused to See also (N.D.Ill., 1974). Nelson appear her Radio & any meeting of Motorola, Co. board, Supply provide refused to her with F.2d min- Cir., cert. (5 meetings, rejected utes of the any pay- any guarantee ments offered 97 L.Ed. 1356 of her for a recently Indeed the state has enacted civil within state shall withhold consent rights legislation specifically prohibits proposed which the sale sale of of certificates refusing cooperatives ownership from to consent to trans- stock other evidence of of corporation fers because of sex. New York Civil interest such because of the 19-a(l) race, creed, origin, reads: national sex of the purchaser.” corporation purpose of “No formed for the ownership real estate within safely to be seem here would ants concept conspiracy discussion decision the Dombrowski area of context. an antitrust that of Rackin. outside quite the numerous authorities Of de- case, the individual instant In the cites, only we Rackin v. University find of directors comprise the board fendants (E.D. Pennsylvania, F.Supp. acted. through In 1974) Pa., worthy discussion.5 Rac- specifically agreement kin, alleged sex discrimination before of the board cоnsent quired officers, University, its cer- by interest could any transfer faculty tenured members. The tain dis- claiming that defend- effective. court found the Dombrowski trict ration- president the board advised ants inapplicable to facts of ale case refused occupancy, continued deny her continuing and varied in- because provide appearance, personal permit of discrimination and stances harass- minutes, or a payments accept with only plaintiff given was ment: ten- legal ac- guarantee and commenced debt tion, department in a other than the urе one allege any of plaintiff does not earned, in which was decision clearly acted in the individual contrary university policy, normal but role of than his capacity subsequently assigned she had been below, the court by found As director. courses outside her area freshmen specialty. The court found that these chal- the decision “Although actions, a single more than decision judg- collective lenges reflected supported entity, business a conspir- persons,’ the ‘two or more ment allegation. 386 at 1005. F.Supp. product be considered cision cannot the board when aof the University The situation at corporation’s carrying out merely Pennsylvania was unlike the situation policy.” managerial single Here there is but one here. busi- 455-56. entity managerial policy ness with a im- governing board, the one Plaintiff next plemented argues that defendants conspired the University Pennsylvania, while at maliciously telephoning her department disparate each had own unreasonable hours in order to harass her responsibilities giving up and functions so that into struggle to main- complained of tain by occupancy. actions Again, plaintiff does clearly only poli- werе not actions one assert that the individual defendants bodies; were cymaking body acting but of several than as officers and directors; correctly thus court held that the complaint identifies them allegations supported a claim of conspir- status. The fact among they them. Here were plaintiff’s alle- also shareholders and ‍‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​​‍gations multiple apartments acts tenants of in directors the defendant- corporation’s building are not to be other than the im- does not plain- aid case, tiff’s plementation single of a since policy by a she did not allege sin- Indeed, gle policymaking body. individual defendants defend- were motivat- others, Among merely complaint clearly cites also Pendrell v. stated that “[h]er alleges ‘defendants, College, F.Supp. 386 Chatham some or all them, 1974) Westberry F.Supp. (W.D.Pa., conspired pursuant acted concert (5 Paper Company, ’, satisfy 507 F.2d 206 to a Gilman Cir. common scheme . . . thus 1975), conspiracy ing (1) support [conspiring] of her claim. The element of Griffin.” Pend regard- College, supra, F.Supp. is not rell Pendrell instructive v. Chatham decision conspiracy 1985(3) ing analysis, of a 500. Because § element there is no it diffi opinions assign weight finding. cult claim. two district court much to this aspect focused on the state action Pendrell Westberry Paper supra, Company, v. Gilman university against private 1983 claim a a § 507 F.2d at was withdrawn a rehear- after plaintiff satisfied the second element whether ing en banc with to the orders district court claim, is not at of a issue § moot, spawn dismiss as “so that will no conspiracy aspect here. Insofar as legal precedents.” concerned, district claim is court stake in independent personal OAKES, by any Judge (dissenting): ed Circuit objective. In corporation’s achieving the respectfully I dissent. Hartford, University of Colе my view the complaint alleges facts (D.Conn., 1975) which are sufficient to state a substan court stated that 1985(3). tial claim under 42 U.S.C. § corporate officers as “[sjimply joining appellant has also Since raised claim capaci- individual defendants in their York, under the laws of New we have per- enough is not to make them ties pendent jurisdiction over the state law separate sons from the long claim so as “the relationship be legal contemplation. tween claim and the state [the federal] allege they acted other must also claim the conclusion that permits the en than in the normal course of their cor- tire action before the comprises ” is not porate duties. ‘[I]t but constitutional ‘case.’ United alleged that the individual defendants Gibbs, Mine Workers of America v. personal na- committed act of 715, 725, 1130, 1138, except in connection with the cor- ture See also Van Ge ” porate affairs.’ Boeing mert v. plaintiff’s Accordingly, we hold (2d cert. 1985(3) claim must be dismissed for an actionable failure to state (1975).1 Appellant’s complaint cites New the statute. under 296(5)(a)(l) York Executive Law § 1974) (McKinney as the source of her

III. Plaintiff’s State Claim However, state lаw claim.2 this section Human Rights of the New York Law is Plaintiff also alleged a violation court, not enforceable in federal but is of New Executive part of an administrative scheme which 296(5)(a)(l). However, since we is administered the state Division of plaintiff’s dismissed federal claims for Rights. Human The Division investi- action, failure to state a cause of we will gates complaints, hearings has and issues making avoid decisions of “[n]eedless upon complaints by persons orders filed and, exercising discretion, state law” our who claim their have been violat- pendent dismiss her state claim. United subject ed. Id. 297. Thеse orders are Gibbs, Mine Workers v. judicial review in the state courts. Obviously Id. the federal courts jurisdiction cannot take over the state Finally, the Court need not decide remedy proce- with its administrative what effect the prior state court decision dures, exhaustion of which is essential. upon present would had under the judicata. doctrine of res But New York Civil Rights Law The order district court is af- (McKinney 19-a Supp.) 1975-1976 pro- § firmed. vides pendent a basis for a state claim 397, Wyman, 1. See also Rosado v. 397 U.S. having sell, right son rent or lease a 404, 1207, accommodation, 90 S.Ct. Bell housing constructed or to Hoоd, 678, 773, v. 327 U.S. 66 S.Ct. 90 L.Ed. constructed, any agent employee (1946); Levering Garrigues & Co. v. Mor thereof: rin, 549, 77 L.Ed. (1) sell, rent, To refuse to lease or other- deny any person wise to to or withhold from group housing such a accom- race, creed, color, modation because of the action, appellant 2. At the time filed this New origin, sex, disability per- national of such 296(5)(a)(l) provided: York Executive Law § persons. son or Paragraph (1) (a) discriminatory It shall be an unlawful has since been amended to in- owner, lessee, sub-lessee, practice clude the for the as- words “or marital status” after the of, “disability.” signеe, managing agent per- word or other 1985(3) solve both claim and the § in the appellant’s is inherent which claim, or, may be preferable, state which pro- That allegations. section pleaded resolving 1985(3) avoid claim on § vides pendent merits if state claim formed No permits disposition Here, of the case. of real v. Railway Louisville & Nashville Siler within the state shall withhold estate proposed ‍‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​​‍to the sale or sale its consent (1909), a ques- 53 L.Ed. 753 once federal of stock or other evi- of certificates alleged, is substantially tion the court ownership of an interest dencе of has race, corporation because of the such creed, origin, or national sex to decide all the questions in purchaser. case, though even it decided the questions adversely Federal par- arising It is obvious that the claim Id. raising them, ty or even if it omitted the same this state statute3 has under all, to decide them at but decided the operative fact” as “common nucleus of case on local questions or state only. Therefore, claim. appellant’s federal economy, con judicial “considerations of put way, To resolution of the litigants,” Unit fairness venience state law claim here alone is proper, and Gibbs, Workers of America ed Mine permit would avoidance of an “avoida 726, 86 S.Ct. at 383 U.S. at supra, ble” decision under federal rights civil weigh stage at this of the case to appear Bator, Mishkin, law. See P. P. Shapi D. of resolution of state claim in favor Wechsler, ro and H. Hart and Wechsler’s proceedings. federal in the court The Federal Courts and the Sys Federal 922-23; (2d 1973) tem ed. Wright, C. federal well to remember is It Law of (1970) Federal Courts § is here conferred jurisdiction generally Note, 62-65. See UMW v. 28 U.S.C. 1343(1),(3), § Jurisdiction, Gibbs Pendent 81 Harv. had to 42 U.S.C. is 1331(a).4 Resort L.Rev. a whether 1985(3) only to determine thereunder, cre since it is stated claim complaint names three individual McNeese action. See cause of ates as well as the 668, 671 Education, 373 U.S. Board alleges they have con- fendant 10 L.Ed.2d 1, 83 S.Ct. n.& deprive appel- with each other to spired Sexton, action); Byrd v. (§ 1983 (1963) rights. and property lant of her civil (Blackmun, Cir Cir.) (8th F.2d 418 that appellant’s court below found denied, 364 U.S. Judge), cert. cuit complaint did not state claim under (1960); Camp 5 L.Ed.2d interpreted court because the Inc., Hospital, Hills v. Glenwood bell failing to complaint as assert (D.Minn.1963). acting individual defendants wеre com- capacity as directors allegations in here, outside Where, as Thus, corporation. to state a of the defendant sufficient are plaint may reasoned, the indi- the actions of claim, trial court appellant (McKin property claims 19-b 3. New Civil CIO, “[a]ny Hague provides deprived, ney Supp.) see 1975-1976 518-32, L.Ed. aggrieved by violation of section a Note, right Civil Jurisdictional Amount of ac shall a nineteen-a Cases, appropriate jurisdiction U.Chi.L.Rev. court of tion jurisdictional 1343(1) equitable coun- it is the for because § such other restrain remedies, violation Moreovеr, 1985(3). un- terpart including § such affirmative and 1331(a) 1343(3), may necessary nor neither to undo the effect like relief as be infringement requirement a contains of such violation.” Lynch See state law.” under “color of Probably 1331(a) are the §§ 4. Corp., 405 U.S. Household Finance 1331(a) juris- applicable, because most 31 L.Ed.2d clearly it satisfied and amount test dictional acting the di- vidual defendants “cannot be are not individuals considered corporate a product conspiracy employer their when the rection of merely carrying necessarily board for its benefit. out the cor- poration’s managerial policy.” Further, complaint alleges that the defendants, “in furtherance of the said is, sure, It to be conspiracy basic law design conspiracy,” that a corporation conspire cannot with caused, permitted al- [a]dvised, agents employees acting its within the lowed President and the Board of scope employment, of their Pearson v. corporate Directors of defendant Youngstown Sheet & Tube 332 F.2d deny plaintiff permission and au- (7th Cir.), cert. thority occupancy continue of the And subject premises. it conspiratorial has been said that if the Surеly implication allega- such an challenged conduct gle is essentially a “sin tion is not that the defendants in their act of discrimination single busi corporate agents as capacity advised entity,” ness the fact that two or more themselves to act in their capacity as agents participated decision or act corporate agents. Rather, it is that de- will “normally not constitute” capacities fendants their individual 1985(3) conspiracy. Dombrowski v. according termined to personal motives Dowling, 459 F.2d (7th Cir. they managerial would cause 1972). But here the individual defend president and the board di- ants were to be simply rectors to serve their individual interests. agents employees corporate of the de allegation The crux of this is that de- fendant, acting nor to be in the scope of acted, fendants albeit behind the screen employment, nor to acting be for roles, corporate of their in an individual benefit. A closer reading capacity. and not complaint indicates that appellant Here, indeed, complaint alleg- also explicitly alleges injurious that the acts that “the purpose, es intent and result” of the individual conspirators defendant enable, ‍‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​​‍permit of the “was to were indeed committed in their individu and allow said defendants to receive al, corporate, not their capacities. own use for their and benefit and not the complaint Here alleges that for the benefit of the sole and individual defendants “constitute the of exclusive to determine who shall ficers and the entire Board of Directors own said shares of proprie- stock and the corporate defendant, and wholly tary subject premises lease in the dominate, operate and control all its (Emphasis added.) . .” As share- business and financial (Empha affairs.” holders in the corporation added.) sis allegations These alone serve building and as leaseholders to distinguish this case from Dombrow would to their individual financial ski, supra. As recognized by Judge apartment benefit to have the Girard McMillenin Cohen v. Illinois Institute of might very vert and it Technology, 384 F.Supp. (N.D. personal well to their benefit to ac- Ill.1974), the case is entirely different quire apartment themselves. when the individual officers or directors allegations These to personal as motives “alleged are to have controlled cor distinguish [the alone furthеr serve to this porate or to have personally corporate-agent defendant] case from the cases re- committed acts discrimination ferred to above. Nelson Radio & See case, . .”5 In here, such a Motorola, Supply Co. 200 F.2d Broadcasting Co., nature this relevance to the While in Baker Stuart alleged conspiracy (8th was not two discussed. The de- illuminating cision cannot therefore be deemed defendants owned 100 three named individual point. corporation, on this per the the stock of cent of 925, 1985(3), of the laws” within protection 345 U.S. 1952), cert. (5th Cir. as within the Fоurteenth Amend- 783, as well 97 L.Ed. 73 S.Ct. Stanton, v. Stanton ment. See U.S. part as a in Moreover, engaged acts (1975); 7, 95 43 L.Ed.2d 688 S.Ct. allegedly Wiesenfeld, Weinberger v. “tele- malicious deliberate include at unreasonable calls phone Richardson, v. Frontiero U.S. harassing solely for the hours 36 L.Ed.2d plain- order to force her in annoying is, short, a claim under There this . .” premises said vacate tiff rights statute to federal civil warrant established, would sure- conduct, if Such jurisdiction under 28 federal in na- noncorporate ly be individual 1343(1), 1331(a) and under the allegations ture; are these nor jurisdiction pendent above principles as be- passed off disregarded lightly support clearly to considera- enumerated University v. Rackin Cf. ing de minimis. law claim under tion of the state (E.D. Pennsylvania, Rights Law. I would New York Civil Pa.1974). for that reverse and remand considera- my All these factors in view make tion.6 alleged question whether 1985(3) conspiracy existed one that cer- substantial, so tainly supply, is

even it does not succeed on own if jurisdiction of

merits, pendent clear

state law claim. is, sure, NATIONAL LABOR question, RELATIONS There BOARD, Petitioner, Breckinridge,

left in Griffin v. open 102 n. conspir- “whether a INDUSTRIES, FOUR WINDS by invidiously motivated discrimina- INC., Respondent. tory intent other than racial bias would 1985(3). A be actionable” under series No. 74-3251. cases, Supreme perhaps of recent Court United States ‍‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​​‍Court of Appeals, is Taylor foremost Loui- Ninth Circuit. siana, (1975), point way toward 4, 1976. Feb. involving affirmative answer cases 26, 1976. April Rehearing Denied bias on account of sex. One would esti- deprival property mate that of valuable person’s gender

rights on account of denial the equal

would constitute a “of argued Fifth Appellees v. 94th Street and Avenue have this suit Law.” Girard Court, prior Corp., (Supreme judicata No. barred res effect Civ. 15173/73 8, 1974) (memoran brought by against County, July appellant state court New York appellees. day, litiga- opinion). Only In the in Heren these same tion, however, state court dum Champion Corp., appellant merely contended International deen (2d appellees’ assign we to her F.2d 130 held under New refusal that where a in a second shares owned her former York law agreement independent forth claim of de husband was breach of the suit sets “an wrongdoing” corporations does the first suit law. violation fendant state Mo though rights bar second even civil state court ac- tion, joined” against judge, ruling ap- the second suit claim with “could have state claim, pellant’s appellees Mrs. could Id. 134. While Girard stated have first. joined in her state civil claim to refuse to consent to the transfer of “except, she not do so. She is not suit did lease for reason course, barred, therefore, asserting prohibited by it now. from those the Civil

Case Details

Case Name: Barbara Girard v. 94th Street and Fifth Avenue Corporation

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Date Published: May 19, 1976

Citation: 530 F.2d 66

Docket Number: 372, Docket 75-7443

Court Abbreviation: 2d Cir.