Imposing sanctions based on frivolous litigation challenging the termination of an individual's employment
Jiggetts v New York City Human Resources Admin., 2017 NY Slip Op 09236, Appellate Division, First Department
A per diem employee, Kyle Jiggetts, was terminated from his position with the New York City Department of Homeless Services [DHS] 1994.
Jiggertts challenged his termination and an arbitrator concluded that, as a per diememployee, he could not challenge the termination of his employment under the disciplinary review procedures set forth in the controlling collective bargaining agreement.
Jiggetts, however, "continued to pursue lawsuits long after their lack of any legal basis was made apparent to him" and ultimately Supreme Court granted DHS's motion for sanctions. Jiggetts appealed.
The Appellate Division opined that given Jiggetts history of frivolous litigation, Supreme Court had providently exercised its discretion in imposing sanctions, which consisted of:
1. Ordering Jiggetts to pay $10,000;
2. Enjoining Jiggetts from commencing any further actions or proceedings arising out of his termination of employment from DHS without prior leave of the court.
The Appellate Division further explained that "[t]o the extent Jiggetts' remaining claims of discrimination and retaliation are not barred by res judicataprinciples based on prior federal and state court rulings rejecting his challenges to HRA's termination of his employment in 1994, they are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations, as the instant petition, filed in 2015, was commenced more than three years after petitioner was terminated in 1994."
The decision is posted on the Internet at: