Determining the employee status of an individual for the purposes of maintaining a Title VII civil rights action

Determining the employee status of an individual for the purposes of maintaining a Title VII civil rights action

Knight v State University of New York at Stony Brook, USCA, 2nd Circuit, Docket No. 17-54-cv

Anthony Knight, an African-American electrician, sued State University of New York at Stony Brook, alleging that Defendant violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it terminated his employment after he reported racist graffiti in a bathroom located at his worksite.

At the trial Stony Brook contended that Knight was not an employee for purposes of Title VII as was an electrician and a member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 25. Local 25 had an arrangement with Stony Brook under which it referred union electricians to Stony Brook when additional workers were needed to supplement its workforce during large construction projects.

When Knight moved for judgment as a matter of law that he was Stony Brook's employee the United States District Court judge denied Knight’s motion and submitted the issue to the jury. The jury found that Knight was not an employee and thus Stony Brook was not the employer for the purposes of Title II.

On appeal, the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment, holding that Knight was not an employee of Stony Brook.

In response to Knight's argument that the court rather than the jury should have decided his employment status, the Circuit Court explained that whether a jury may determine a plaintiff’s status as an employee presents a question of law, citing Kirsch v. Fleet Street, Ltd., 148 F.3d 149. 

In Kirsch the Circuit Court had rejected the argument that submitting the question to a jury is prejudicial error, the same contention Knight advanced in this action, noting that whether an individual is an employee is “regularly presented to juries that are instructed to return general verdicts, informed by the court’s instructions on the law and given the direction that if they find that the plaintiffs in question were employees . . . they should simply state that they find in favor of the plaintiffs.”*  

The question as to whether an individual is an employee of a defendant in a Title VII action was considered in Community for Creative Non-Violencev. Reid, 490 U.S. 730. Borrowing from the common law of agency, the Supreme Court established a "non-exhaustive list of thirteen factors which guide the determination of employee status," the so-called Reid factors,  set out below:

1. The hiring party’s right to control the manner and means by which the product is accomplished;

2. The skill required;

3. the source of the instrumentalities and tools;

4. the location of the work;

5. The duration of the relationship between the parties;

6. Whether the hiring party has the right to assign additional projects to the hired party;

7. The extent of the hired party’s discretion over when and how long to work;

8. The method of payment;

9. The hired party’s role in hiring and paying assistants;

10. Whether the work is part of the regular business of the hiring party;

11. Whether the hiring party is in business;

12. The provision of employee benefits; and

13. The tax treatment of the hired party.

Although Knight had shown that Stony Brook provided some of his tools, it was also shown that the electricians were required to supply their own basic tools. When Knight argued that he was an employee because Stony Brook provided him with benefits, Stony Brook produced evidence that the benefits were in fact paid to the union, which was charged with dispersing the benefits to individual members.

Although Knight presented uncontradicted evidence that he was paid by checks issued by the New York State Comptroller and was treated as an employee for tax purposes, Stony Brook, in turn, presented undisputed evidence that the construction work for which Knight was hired was not its usual business and that the duration of his employment was brief.

The District Court instructed the jury to consider and balance the Reid factors in determining Knight’s employment status. The jury returned a verdict finding that Knight was not an employee of Stony Brook. Finding no error requiring the reversal of the jury’s finding that Knight was not an employee of Stony Brook, the Circuit Court affirmed the judgment of the District Court.

* The Circuit Court also noted that in Baker v. Tex. & Pac. Ry.Co., 359 U.S. 227, "the Supreme Court has held that a jury may decide the employer/employee issue in Federal Employers’ Liability Act cases."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/52db75a2-2f70-4d17-94d2-3dcd7b690f79/1/doc/17-54_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/52db75a2-2f70-4d17-94d2-3dcd7b690f79/1/hilite/

Vacating an arbitrator's award concerning a matter submitted to compulsory arbitration

Vacating an arbitrator's award concerning a matter submitted to compulsory arbitration

Dikovskiy v New York City Bd. of Educ., 2018 NY Slip Op 00231, Appellate Division, First Department

Gennadiy Dikovskiy filed petition pursuant to CPLR Article 75 seeking a court order vacating an arbitration award. Supreme Court granted Dikovskiy's petition and denied the New York City Board of Education's motion to dismiss her Article 75 action.

The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's ruling vacating the penalty imposed.

Citing Matter of Asch v New York City Bd./Dept. of Educ., 104 AD3d 415, the Appellate Division explained that "Where, as here, the parties have submitted to compulsory arbitration, the hearing officer's determination must be in accord with due process, supported by adequate evidence, and rational, and must not be arbitrary and capricious."

Finding that Supreme Court "properly concluded that the hearing officer's determination was arbitrary and capricious, and not supported by the record," the Appellate Division noted that:

1. There was no evidence that Dikovskiy's conduct toward a student violated any rule or regulation or was otherwise inappropriate;

2. The Board of Education's various training materials encouraged teachers to interact with students outside the classroom to foster student development;

3. The alleged "inappropriate" conduct with which Dikovskiy was charged "was not sufficiently defined so as to put Dikovskiy on notice as to what constituted misconduct; and

4. The Appellate Division's review of the video in evidence did not demonstrate that Dikovskiy had "engaged in any inappropriate behavior with a student."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_00231.htm

Collecting attorney fees from the losing party

Collecting attorney fees from the losing party

Dechbery v Cassano, 2018 NY Slip Op 00228, Appellate Division, First Department

The Appellate Division held that Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in denying Eileen Dechbery attorneys' fees in this proceeding seeking to vindicate her rights pursuant to Civil Service Law §71.*

 

Citing Matter of A.G. Ship Maintenance Corp. v Lezak, 69 NY2d 1, the court said that the general rule is that in Article 78 proceedings, "the prevailing party may not collect [attorneys' fees] from the loser unless an award is authorized by agreement between the parties or by statute or by court rule." However, observed the court, a petitioner in an Article 78 proceeding may be entitled to attorneys' fees under 42 USC §1988 where she asserts a substantial federal constitutional claim.

In this instance the Appellate Division said that Dechbery was not entitled to an award of attorney's fees as she has not successfully asserted a substantial federal constitutional claim in the proceeding. Although she alleges that her due process rights were violated, the mere fact that respondents mailed her notice of termination letter to her prior address does not constitute a violation of her due process rights as she was provided with post-termination due process.

Further, the court observed that Dechbery had failed to establish her entitlement to an award of attorneys' fees under the New York State Equal Access to Justice Act (CPLR Article 86).

* Civil Service Law §71 provides for leaves of absence in the event an employee’s injury or disease is “work connected” and is typically referred to as “workers’ compensation leave. The appointing authority may, as an exercise of discretion, terminate an employee absent on §71 Worker’s Compensation Leave after he or she has been absent on such leave due to the same injury or disease for an accumulative period of one year or longer.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_00228.htm

Signing a general release of all claims accruing up to the settlement date

Signing a general release of all claims accruing up to the settlement date
Harrington v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 00381, Appellate Division, First Department

In this employment discrimination and retaliation action, Michael Harrington alleges that the City of New York, et al, [Defendants] discriminated against him on the basis of his sexual orientation by refusing to employ him as a police officer and that Defendants also retaliated against him for a previous lawsuit plaintiff filed against the Defendants in 2007.

The 2007 action alleged discrimination, retaliation and harassment. The parties settled the 2007 lawsuit on December 12, 2013, with Harrington signing a general release of all claims accruing up to the settlement date, in exchange for a $185,000 payment from the Defendants.

After settlement, the New York Police Department [NYPD] instructed Harrington to proceed with his then-pending 2010 application, and he underwent another psychological evaluation. His application  remained on hold for nearly one year before the NYPD found Harrington not psychologically suited to serve as a police officer. The disqualification was based on the police psychologist's finding that plaintiff "relied chiefly on litigation to resolve issues," and cited plaintiff's 2007 action as evidence of his "poor stress tolerance."

Harrington,after exhausting his administrative remedies, initiated the instant litigation asserting causes of action for discrimination and retaliation under the State and City Human Rights Laws [HRLs]. He sought damages and an order directing the Defendants to appoint him to the NYPD. Supreme Court dismissed the causes of action. The Appellate Division reinstated Harringtoncauses of action, explaining that his complaint, "as amplified by [Harrington's] affidavit and psychological report, states claims for both discrimination and retaliation."

Harrington had stated a claim of invidious discrimination under the State and City HRLs by alleging (1) that he or she is a member of a protected class, (2) that he or she was qualified for the position, (3) that he or she was subjected to an adverse employment action (under State HRL) or he or she was treated differently or worse than other employees (under City HRL), and (4) that the adverse or different treatment occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination.

The Appellate Division, "affording plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference, establishes prima faciethat defendants discriminated against plaintiff on account of his sexual orientation in finding him psychologically unfit to serve," said that "To make out a prima facie claim of retaliation under the State HRL, a plaintiff must show that (1) he/she has engaged in a protected activity, (2) his/her employer was aware of such activity, (3) he/she suffered an adverse employment action based upon the activity, and (4) a causal connection exists between the protected activity and the adverse action."*

Plaintiff alleges that in retaliation for his having commenced the 2007 action against the Defendants, they placed a psychological hold on his present application for employment in 2014, and ultimately found him psychologically unfit for the position.**

As an initial matter, Harrington's retaliation claims are not barred either by his settlement of the 2007 action, or by the general release of all claims that he could have asserted against the Defendants until that time. The alleged facts underlying the retaliation claims occurred in February 2014, and were not, said the court, precluded by the general release executed before that date, which waived only causes of action "up to . . . and including the date of the execution of this General Release."

The Defendants had contend that the 2007 action is not sufficiently temporally proximate to the alleged adverse action to support the causal connection necessary for plaintiff's retaliation claim. The Appellate Division disagreed, finding that although "temporal proximity between a protected activity and an adverse employment action may, under some circumstances, be sufficient in itself to permit the inference of a causal connection necessary for a retaliation claim, the fact that actions are not temporally proximate is not necessarily fatal to a retaliation claim. The absence of temporal proximity will not defeat the claim, where, as here, there are other facts supporting causation."

In finding Harrington psychologically unfit, the Defendants' police psychologist relied on Harrington's 2007 action against the Defendants. Specifically, the police psychologist's report stated that Harrington had "poor stress tolerance" and relied "chiefly on litigation to resolve issues." The Appellate Division held that the 2007 litigation served as the psychological disqualifier and was sufficient to plead the causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action in this case.

* Under the City HRL, the test is similar, though rather than an adverse action, the plaintiff must show only that the defendant "took an action that disadvantaged" him or her.

** In finding plaintiff psychologically unfit, defendants' police psychologist relied on plaintiff's 2007 action against defendants. Specifically, the police psychologist's report stated that plaintiff had "poor stress tolerance" and relied "chiefly on litigation to resolve issues." The Appellate Division ruled that the 2007 litigation serving as the psychological disqualifier is sufficient to plead the causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action in this case.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_00381.htm

The tolling of the statute of limitations when litigating a federal civil rights claim

The tolling of the statute of limitations when litigating a federal civil rights claim

Artis v District of Columbia, USSC, Docket 16-460

28 USC Section 1367(d) provides that the “period of limitations for” to refile a cause of action for a claim in State court  “shall be tolled while the claim is pending [in federal court] and for a period of 30 days after it is dismissed unless State law provides for a longer tolling period.”

Stephanie C. Artis filed lawsuit in federal court against the District of Columbia alleging a federal employment discrimination claim. Artis also filed three related claims under D.C. law.

At the time Artis filed the related claims nearly two years remained on the statute of limitations for timely filing of the D.C. law claims.

More than two years later the federal district court rejected Artis' federal claim and dismissed her D.C.-law claims. Artis then filed her D.C. law claims in the D.C. Superior Court 59 days later. Superior Court dismissed those actions as time-barred and the D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed.

Supreme Court reversed, rejecting the District of Columbia's argument that 28 USC Section 1367(d) merely provided a grace period and the statute of limitations continued to run while the claim was pending in another forum.

The Supreme Court disagreed, explaining that the plain meaning of the statutory language, 28 USC Section 1367(d) indicated that the provision was a tolling provision, suspending the running of the statute of limitations both while the claim is pending in federal court and for 30 days after a dismissal of the federal action.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-460_bqm2.pdf