Supreme Court granted Defendants' motions to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint and denied Plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to amend the complaint.* Plaintiff appealed the Supreme Court's determinations.
Unanimously affirming the lower court's rulings, the Appellate Division explained that Plaintiff's State Human Rights Law (State HRL) causes of action were properly dismissed by the Supreme Court as Plaintiff failed to serve a notice of claim or to commence this action within the prescribed time limit after his alleged constructive discharge as required by the relevant law for any claim against a Town defendant for damages for a "wrong . . . to person".
The Appellate Division opined that "This language is broad enough to include an employment discrimination claim based on State HRL." In addition, noted the Appellate Division, even had Plaintiff served a notice of claim, the action is time-barred because he failed to comply with General Municipal Law §50-i by commencing this action "beyond the year-and-90-day period".
As to the State HRL and defamation claims against the individual defendant, an employee of the Town, the Appellate Division found that they were properly dismissed because of Plaintiff's failure to serve a notice of claim (Town Law §67[1]; see, also, General Municipal Law §50-e[1][a]).
Plaintiff was required to timely serve a notice of claim upon the Town pursuant to General Municipal Law §50-e (1) (a) as a condition precedent to commencing and maintaining this action against the individual defendant as the Town has a statutory obligation to indemnify its employee (see General Municipal Law §§50-e[1][b]). The individual defendant was acting or in good faith purporting to act within the scope of his public employment when answering a phone call made to the Town regarding Plaintiff's former employment. The employee was not being sued in his individual capacity, as the allegations stem from his role as a Town employee.
The Appellate Division also found that Plaintiff's State HRL claims were also properly dismissed as against defendants State of New York and City of New York as the State HRL's list of protected classes does not include caretaker or caregiver in contrast to the City Human Rights Law (See Administrative Code of City of NY §8-107[1][a]).
* Plaintiff had contended that he had been "constructively discharged" from his position with Town and that he had been defamed by a certain individual Defendant, an employee of the Town.
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.