Supreme Court granted New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance's [ODTA] CPLR §211 motion to dismiss the Petitioner's claims against it under the New York City Human Rights Law [City HRL] alleging national origin discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law [State HRL], and for alleged violation of Civil Service Law §75-b.
The Appellate Division sustained the dismissal on the ground of sovereign immunity and lack of subject matter jurisdiction, citing Jattan v Queens Coll. of City Univ. of N.Y., 64 AD3d 540. Further, opined the court, Petitioner failed to identify "any independent duty on the part of [ODTA's Deputy Commissioner] to him, outside of the City HRL, which could serve as a vehicle for holding the State "secondarily liable for the tortious acts under respondeat superior".]
Addressing Petitioner's allegations of violation of Civil Service Law §75-b, the Appellate Division sustained Supreme Court's action, explaining that "claims under CSL 75-b are committed to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Claims," citing Article VI, §9 and the Court of Claims Act §§ 8-9. Accordingly, said the Appellate Division, the lower court "properly severed and dismissed that cause of action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction."
With respect to Petitioner's cause of action alleging national origin discrimination against defendants OTDA and the Deputy Commissioner, the Appellate Division ruled "[l]iberally construing the complaint, presuming its factual allegations to be true, and according it the benefit of every possible favorable inference," Petitioner's complaint asserted that [the Deputy Commissioner] was aware of a long chain of discrimination against [Petitioner] and condoned it."
Further, the Appellate Division said "[i]t can also be inferred that [the Deputy Commissioner] was aware of [Petitioner's] national origin, and condoned the continuing discrimination and concurrent retaliation against him, culminating in the ultimate adverse action of termination of employment."
Accordingly, the Appellate Division reinstated the amended complaint's State HRL cause of action for national origin discrimination against OTDA and the Deputy Commissioner and the accompanying aiding and abetting discrimination claim against the individual defendants.
Click HERE to access the text of the Appellate Division's decision.