Employee on a pregnancy-related leave terminated after failing to commit to a return-to-work date

In this action to recover damages for alleged unlawful employment discrimination on the basis of gender in violation of Executive Law §296 and the Administrative Code of the City of New York §8-107, Plaintiff appealed from an order of the Supreme Court granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing her complaint. 

Plaintiff had taken a pregnancy-related leave but had repeatedly failed to commit to a date on which she would return from such leave. Defendant terminated Plaintiff's employment at the end of her pregnancy-related leave.

Plaintiff commenced the instant action alleging unlawful discrimination on the basis of gender and retaliation within the meaning of the New York State Human Rights Law [NYSHRL] (Executive Law §296) and the New York City Human Rights Law [NYCHRL] (Administrative Code of the City of New York §8-107). Defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff's complaint. 

Supreme Court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment and Plaintiff appealed the Supreme Court's ruling.

The Appellate Division found that:

1. Defendant met its prima facie burden by demonstrating that Plaintiff's employment was terminated for a nondiscriminatory reason, namely her failure to commit to a return-to-work date, citing Niemotko v Mount St. Mary Coll., 241 AD3d at 703; and

2. Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the Defendant's reason for terminating her employment was a pretext for pregnancy discrimination, citing D'Agostino v MMC E., LLC, 184 AD3d 719.

The Appellate Division held that "Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the [Defendant's] motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging pregnancy discrimination in violation of the NYSHRL", noting that "the [Defendant] met its prima facie burden by establishing that there was no evidentiary route that could allow any jury to believe that the [Plaintiff's] employment was terminated for discriminatory reasons".

The Appellate Division also noted that Plaintiff "failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the proffered explanation [by the Defendant] was a pretext for discrimination or whether discrimination was one of the motivating factors for the challenged action".

Opining that "Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the [Defendant's] motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging gender discrimination in violation of the NYCHRL", the Appellate Division dismissed Plaintiff's appeal.

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.

New York State Bar Association’s Workers’ Compensation Division to hold its 1st Annual Educational Seminar

Join the New York State Bar Association’s Workers’ Compensation Division for its 1st Annual Educational Seminar, a premier two-day program featuring timely updates, practical guidance, and in-depth discussions on the issues shaping New York State's workers’ compensation law. 

Topics include:

• Current Trends in NYS Workers’ Compensation
• Litigation Strategy & Effective Hearing Protocol 
• Appellate Division, 3rd Department Panel 
• Section 32 Settlements & Stipulations
• Permanency & Labor Market Attachment 
• Medical Causation & Benefits
• A View From the Bench 
• Kids Chance of New York Scholarship Presentation
• Presentation from the New York State Compensation Board
  Advocate for Injured Workers
• Case Law Update/Appeals
• Third Party Settlements – Liens & Offsets
• Practicing with Professionalism

Wednesday, November 4, 2026 – Thursday, November 5, 2026 New York State Bar Association – Albany, NY

Register Now

Sponsors include: Workers' Compensation Law Division Committee Torts, Insurance, & Compensation Law Section Committee on Continuing Legal Education

New York State's State and Local Employees' Retirement System announces employer contributions rates for State Fiscal Year 2027-2028

In a press release issued on September 8, 2026, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli reported "the  employer contribution rates for the New York State and Local Retirement System  (NYSLRS) for State Fiscal Year (SFY) 2027-28. Employers’ average contribution rates will decrease from 17.6% to 17.3% of payroll for the Employees’ Retirement System [ERS] and increase from 36.5% to 37.4% of payroll for the Police and Fire Retirement System [PFRS]."

In the press release, the State Comptroller reported:

NYSLRS is made up of these two systems, which pay service and disability retirement benefits to state and local public employees and death benefits to their survivors. There are more than 3,000 participating employers in ERS and PFRS, and more than 300 different retirement plan combinations. In the SFY that ended March 31, 2026, NYSLRS paid more than $17.5 billion in benefits. ERS has about 1.2 million members with 493,000 retirees and beneficiaries receiving benefits and PFRS has 79,000 members with 42,000 retirees and beneficiaries currently receiving benefits.*

The Governor' press release notes: 

“Our state pension fund and retirement system continue to be among the strongest in the nation, even as we navigate the challenges of damaging federal policy changes, market volatility and global conflict,” DiNapoli said. “These rates, coupled with our disciplined, long-term investment strategy and prudent management, will help ensure public workers and their families receive the retirement benefits they have earned.

"Employer rates for NYSLRS are determined based on investment performance and actuarial assumptions recommended by NYSLRS’ actuary, who is required to review the actuarial assumptions and experience and to issue an annual report. The recommendations are reviewed by the independent Actuarial Advisory Committee and approved by the Comptroller. In addition to investment performance, other factors that impact rates include higher salaries, plan options selected by employers, recent legislative reforms to Tiers 5 and 6 and member retirement rates.

The press release also noted: "In 2012, DiNapoli began providing employers with access to a two-year projection of their annual pension bills. Employers can use this projection in the preparation of their budgets. Projections of required contributions vary by employer depending on factors such as the types of retirement benefit plans adopted, salaries paid, and the distribution of employees among the six membership tiers."

The press release continues, indicating:

"Payments based on the new rates are due by Feb. 1, 2028, but employers receive a discount if payment is made by Dec. 15, 2027.

"The New York State Common Retirement Fund’s long-term assumed rate of return will remain at 5.9%. DiNapoli has been a leader in the trend of public pension funds lowering their assumed rates of return to better enable New York to weather volatile markets. The median investment return assumption for public pension funds was 7% in July 2026, according to the National Association of State Retirement Administrators."

DiNapoli also announced that NYSLRS had a funded ratio of 96.8% as of March 31, 2026. NYSLRS is consistently one of the nation’s best funded retirement systems. "A high funding ratio means NYSLRS has funds available to pay retirement benefits to about 1.3 million members, consisting of over 750,000 current and former state and local government employees and more than 535,000 retirees and their beneficiaries."

The fund’s estimated value was $309.7 billion as of June 30, 2026.

* Nota Bene: The State University of New York's Optional Retirement Program is not part of NYSLRS. 

Report 

Annual Report to the Comptroller on Actuarial Assumptions

Related Work:

State Pension Fund Valued at $309.7 Billion at End of First Quarter

Fiduciary and Conflict of Interest Review

###

Election of remedies

Plaintiff, a parent of children attending the School District's schools, appealed a determination of the School District's Board of Education [Respondent] with the Commissioner of Education after being informed "that he would be banned from all district property and that any emails sent to district staff would be blocked through June 30, 2026".  

Plaintiff argued that the Respondent’s limitations on his access to school property was arbitrary and capricious because his conduct was neither disruptive nor abusive and violated his First Amendment and due process rights. 

Respondent contended that Plaintiff had violated its code of conduct and that its "temporary restrictions were necessary given [Plaintiff's] aggressive and inappropriate conduct".

Commissioner of Education Rosa, decided that Plaintiff's appeal to the Commissioner must be dismissed in consideration of the doctrine of election of remedies, noting that Plaintiff had filed a law suit in Supreme Court on March 10, 2026 against the  Respondent concerning the same issues and seeking similar relief.  

Noting that the action in Supreme Court "remains pending," the Commissioner said that "Under these circumstances, it would be contrary to the orderly administration of justice for the Commissioner to decide claims that [Petitioner] has elected to raise in court, particularly where that proceeding seeks the same or similar relief".

Click HERE to access the Commissioner's decision posted on the Internet.