Is the filing of a timely “notice of claim” with a municipal or school district employer where unlawful discrimination is alleged a condition precedent?
The Federal District Court had dismissed Carter's petition on a finding that Carter had failed to comply with the notice-or-claim provision in New York State’s Education Law §3813, which the District Court had held were conditions precedent to bringing any action against a school district or its officers pursuant to the State’s Human Rights Law. The issue, as perceived by the Circuit Court in issuing its summary order, was whether Carter was required to serve a timely notice of claim on the Syracuse City School District in first instance in view of Margerum. The Circuit Court remanded the action to the district court to reconsider this and a number of other issues.
In his concurring opinion, Justice Read noted that the Court of Appeals had held “that an employment discrimination claim brought against a county [sic] under the Human Rights Law is subject to County Law §52(1)'s notice-of-claim requirement,” citing Mills v County of Monroe, 89 AD2d 776, [affd. 24 NY3d 721], 59 NY2d 307. He then said that “There are certainly reasons why the legislature might nonetheless choose to treat civil rights actions differently, as this opinion suggests; however, it is hard to believe that the legislature ever intended to create a situation where an action brought against the County of Erie alleging violations of the Human Rights Law would require a notice of claim as a condition precedent to suit, while the same type of action brought against the City of Buffalo would not.”**
Justice Rivera, in a separate opinion, concurring in part and dissenting in part, said “The Court [of Appeals] has broadly interpreted the Human Rights Law consistent with the statutory mandate that ‘[t]he provisions of [the Human Rights Law] shall be construed liberally for the accomplishment of [its] purposes.’”
2. The Commissioner of Education has held that §3813 does not apply to appeals brought under §310 of the Education Law, [Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, 12369].
4. In Sephton v Board of Education of the City of New York, 99 AD2d 509, the Appellate Division ruled that "the 'tenure rights' of teachers are ... considered a matter in the public interest and therefore §3813 is not applicable to cases seeking to enforce such rights."
The Carter decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/de194eaf-b3bd-4172-b6d7-0727fccccad6/9/doc/15-2395p_so.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/de194eaf-b3bd-4172-b6d7-0727fccccad6/9/hilite/
The Margerum decision is posted on the Internet at:
The Savvis decision is posted on the Internet at: