Courthouse Sanctuary for litigants

On December 19, 2019, a New York federal district court judge denied the U.S.government's motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ICE] attempts to effect arrests in court houses located in New York State.

U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff declined to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of ICE's efforts to effect such arrests. Judge Rakoff rejected the government’s arguments that [1] implied the arrests were “none of this Court’s business" and [2] that even if it were within the jurisdiction of the court, "the common law privilege against courthouse arrests doesn’t apply to ICE."

Below is a portion of a New York State Supreme Court ruling that, in pertinent part, addresses the doctrine.

North Fork Bank, Plaintiff,
v
Raymond Grover et al., Defendants.

District Court of Suffolk County, Third District,

January 23, 2004, 3 Misc 3d 341

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Raymond Grover, defendant pro se. Diane Grover, defendant pro se. 

Halpern, Halpern, Axelrod, Kirschenbaum & Phillips, P.C., Mineola (Elliot Phillips of counsel), for plaintiff.

OPINION OF THE COURT

[Addressing "Courthouse Sanctuary"]

C. Stephen Hackeling, J.

The court explained:

"Despite antagonistic dicta to the contrary, most modern era precedent dealing with the issue of "Courthouse Sanctuary" from service of process has held that New York State residents receive no such immunity protections. (Baumgartner v Baumgartner, 273 App Div 411 [1st Dept 1948]; Department of Hous. Preserv. {**3 Misc 3d at 343}& Dev. of City of N.Y. v Koenigsberg, 133 Misc 2d 893 [Civ Ct, NY County 1986]; Ford Motor Credit Co. v Bobo, 1 Misc 3d 901[A], 2003 NY Slip Op 51464[U] [Nassau Dist Ct, Miller, J.].) These cases hold that the courthouse sanctuary is only available to foreign state residents who come into New York's courts to contest jurisdiction. This doctrine has been slightly expanded to include New York residents who enter the jurisdiction of a New York court of limited territorial jurisdiction to contest jurisdiction. (See Palazzo v Conforti, 50 NYS2d 706 [Civ Ct, NY County 1944]; Singer v Reising, 154 Misc 239 [Mun Ct, Queens County 1935].)

"The Baumgartner Appellate Division panel (at 413) also acknowledges a limited "Courthouse Sanctuary" rule for New York residents if such service would "constitute a disturbance directly tending to interrupt the proceedings of the court or to impair the respect due to its authority." This rule by itself would not be applicable to the instant case as service of process was effected in the courtroom but outside the court's presence and in between calendar calls.

"State Residency Immunity Distinction?

"The English common law made no New York state residency distinction. The doctrine of immunity from arrest of a litigant attending a trial of an action to which he is a party found early recognition and dates back to the Year Book of 13 Henry IV, I, B (Sampson v Graves, 208 App Div 522 [1st Dept 1924]). This is for the obvious reason that Englandhad no sovereign states. The privilege is not a creature of statute, but was created and deemed necessary for the due administration of justice. (See Matthews v Tufts, 87 NY 568, 570 [1882], citing Van Lieuw v Johnson, Ct App, Mar. 1871 [unreported].)*

The logical question now arises, exactly when did New York's appellate courts recognize a residency distinction for application of the "Courthouse Sanctuary"? The answer is that the Court of Appeals never established such a rule. In contra point of fact, the Court of Appeals has opined that "[i]t is the policy of the law to protect suitors and witnesses from arrests upon civil process while coming to and attending the court and while returning home. Upon principle as well as upon authority their immunity from the service of process for the commencement of civil actions against them is absolute eundo, morando et redeundo." (Person v Grier, 66 NY {**3 Misc 3d at 344}124, 125 [1876].)

"In this unanimous opinion, the Court of Appeals expressly addressed the New York Stateresident immunity distinction and established in its dicta (at 126) that "whether any distinction should or does in fact exist, is at least doubtful. This immunity is one of the necessities of the administration of justice, and courts would often be embarrassed if suitors or witnesses, while attending court, could be molested with process." It is noted that Person involved a foreign state resident. In establishing the sanctuary doctrine, the Court stated that (at 125) "this rule is especially applicable in all its force to suitors and witnesses from foreign States . . . ." By direct implication, the Court of Appeals is also applying the protective rule to New York residents.

"The basis of the "Courthouse Sanctuary" rule is that parties should be allowed to contest jurisdiction without submitting to it. "Allowing Re-service . . . makes a mockery of the traverse hearing and essentially allows the plaintiff to use a defective default judgment as a weapon to compel the defendant to submit to service of process." (Ford Motor Credit Co. v Bobo, supra at *2.) The location of an individual's residence does little to legitimize such a mockery. Absent the compulsion of clear controlling precedent, this court will not condone such a situation."

* As memorialized by the Latin phrase eundo, morando, et redeundo  [Latin]  [Going, remaining, and returning], a phrase was used to describe a person (for example, a witness or legislator) who is privileged from arrest while traveling to the place where assigned duties are to be performed, while remaining there, and while returning. 

Judge Hackeling decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2004/2004_24045.htm

Procedural error results in the dismissal of an appeal to the Commissioner of Education

§310 of the Education Law provides for an aggrieved party filing an appeal or petition challenging an act or omission with the Commissioner of Education and the Commissioner is "authorized and required to examine and decide" issues involving, but not limited to, an act or omission at a school district meeting; by a district superintendent and other officers, and official act or decision of any officer, school authorities, or meetings concerning any other matter addressed by the Education Law.

In this appeal, a school superintendent [Petitioner] asked the Commissioner of Education to remove the president and member of the board [President] from the School Board. The Commissioner dismissed the Petitioner's appeal, explaining appeal must be rejected and the application denied because Petitioner's application failed to include proper notice to the President as required by §277.1(b) of the Commissioner’s regulations,* citing Appeal of Cea, 58 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,482 among other Decisions of the Commissioner of Education.

The notice of petition serves to alert a party to the fact that he or she is the subject of removal proceedings and a notice of petition that fails to contain the required language is fatally defective and does not secure jurisdiction over the respondent.

* See 8 NYCRR Part 877, Practice on application for removal of school officers.

The Commissioner's decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume59/d17803

Applying the Doctrine of res judicata

Plaintiffs brought a putative class action against their employer, the New York City Housing Authority [“NYCHA”], and their labor union, Defendant-Appellee Union Local 237, I.B.T. [the “Union”] alleging that NYCHA paid them less than similarly situated white employees and that their Union tacitly approved and encouraged this discriminatory compensation scheme, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1981, the Equal Protection Clause, and the New York City Human Rights Law [“NYCHRL”].

In March 2017, the District Court [Schofield, J.] granted summary judgment in favor of NYCHA and the Union, finding that the record contained insufficient evidence of discriminatory animus.

The Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, affirmed this judgment on appeal [See Wynn v. New York City Hous. Auth., 730 F. App’x 92].

Plaintiffs then filed a second action against the Union [“Wynn II”], this time alleging that the Union violated Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., by allowing NYCHA to pay them less than similarly situated white employees.

The District Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ amended complaint under Rule 12[b][6], concluding that their claims were precluded by res judicata. Plaintiffs then filed this timely appeal.

In Wynn II, Plaintiffs seek to hold the Union liable for “acquiesc[ing]” to NYCHA’s allegedly discriminatory compensation scheme. Plaintiffs’ Title VII claims are therefore based on their labor union’s failure to advocate for higher wages, not on their employer’s decision to pay them less than the prevailing wage rate. As a result, Plaintiffs cannot benefit from the Ledbetter Act, which, as this Court and other circuits have recognized, was directed “to a very specific type of claim: that the employer is ‘paying different wages or providing different benefits to similarly situated employees.’”

As the Ledbetter decision specifically dealt with a pay-discrimination claim that was cognizable without regard to other adverse employment actions, the Circuit Court found that the Ledbetter Act’s reference to ‘discrimination in compensation’ was to traditional pay-discrimination claims rather than to a pay reduction that flows from another adverse employment action.”

Accordingly, said the court, the Ledbetter Act does not save Plaintiffs’ Title VII claims from the application of res judicata.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/941a3a25-6d0d-4540-a4b1-7239a06af994/14/doc/19-962_so.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/941a3a25-6d0d-4540-a4b1-7239a06af994/14/hilite/

Constitutional grounds for presidential Impeachment.

The report by the majority staff of the House Committee on the Judiciary is posted on the Internet at:

https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/documents/HCM%20FINAL%20v.3.pdf

New York State Division Of Human Rights achieves settlement agreement in investigation into denial of marriage license to same sex couple

On December 13, 2019, the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR) announced today that it has reached a settlement agreement with the Town of Root, New York. The agreement follows the denial of a marriage license to a same sex couple by the Town Clerk in Montgomery County. 

Governor Andrew M. Cuomo directed DHR to investigate the matter which concluded that the Town of Root had failed to meet their obligation to not discriminate under state law.*

On July 30, 2018, Town of Root residents Dylan Toften and Thomas Hurd sought to obtain a marriage license from their Town Clerk, Sherrie Eriksen.  Even though Mr. Toften and Mr. Hurd had the requisite documents with them, Ms. Eriksen refused to process their application. On August 1, 2018, Governor Cuomo directed DHR to open an investigation into the denial of the marriage license.

DHR’s investigation revealed that couples were treated differently by the Clerk’s office based on their sexual orientation. DHR determined that there was probable cause the Town of Root violated that state law, which mandates that no application for a marriage license be denied on the grounds that the parties are of the same sex and prohibits government entities from treating individuals seeking to get married differently because of their sexual orientation.

Under the terms of today’s settlement, the Town of Roothas agreed to pay a civil fine and penalty to New York State.  The Town has also agreed to adopt new non-discriminatory policies that will ensure that all individuals in the Town have an equal opportunity to obtain a marriage license.  In addition, the Town will train its current and future employees on the provisions of the State Human Rights Law and will be required to post the Division’s anti-discrimination poster in a conspicuous and public location in the Town building.  In a previously announced agreement, the Town of Root also paid a settlement of $25,000 to Mr. Toften and Mr. Hurd and Town Clerk Eriksen issued a public apology.

* Governor Cuomo and his administration have long been committed to supporting LGBT rights and ensuring that no one suffers discrimination because of their sexual orientation.  In October 2019, he signed legislation conforming laws in estate planning and surrogates court procedures to the Marriage Equality Act.  Under his administration, DHR, in 2014, achieved the settlement of a discrimination complaint against a town in the Finger Lakes region that allegedly denied a spot on a local planning board to an attorney because she was a lesbian.  In 2014, DHR also issued an order finding that an marriage venue in Rensselaer County had discriminated against a same-sex couple by denying the opportunity to have their wedding onsite.  

Determining if the alleged violation of a provision in a collective bargaining agreement is arbitrable

In New York State the court's apply the tests applied to determine if an alleged violation of a term set out in a collective bargaining agreement [CBA] entered in by a public entity and a recognized or certified employee organization may be submitted to arbitration are as follows:

1. Initially, the court must determine whether there is any statutory, constitutional, or public policy prohibition against arbitrating the grievance; and

2. If there is no prohibition against arbitrating the issue, the court then considers the parties' CBA and determines if the parties, in fact, agreed to arbitrate the particular dispute.

In examining the CBA courts merely determine whether there is a reasonable relationship between the subject matter of the dispute and the general subject matter of the CBA. Further, in the event the court rules the matter arbitrable and that the arbitrator will then make a more exacting interpretation of the precise scope of the substantive provisions of the CBA, it may not consider whether the claim with respect to which arbitration is sought is tenable, or otherwise pass upon the merits of the dispute.

In this action the Employer  and an Employee Organization [EO1] were parties to a CBA that provided that Employer was to pay members of EO1 in the collective bargaining unit a certain percentage more than the rate of pay of certain employees in a different collective bargaining unit.

Subsequently a different union representing the employees in a different collective bargaining unit [EO2] entered into an agreement with  Employer to increase the salaries of its members in that collective bargaining unit, including salary increases for years past, 2016 and 2017. However, the EO2 CBA also provided for a waiver of the receipt of retroactive pay for those years. 

The EO1 filed a grievance on behalf of its members seeking payment for retroactive salary increases for the years 2016 and 2017 for its members in EO1.

Employer denied the grievance, finding that the CBA did not contain a provision requiring it to pay EO1 members a retroactive salary based on the retroactive pay increases Employer had negotiated with EO2 for the employees in the collective bargaining unit EO2 represented. When EO1 demanded Employer's decision be submitted arbitration Employer commenced a CPLR Article 75 seeking to stay the arbitration. EO1 cross-moved to compel arbitration.

When Supreme Court denied Employer's petition and granted EO1's cross motion, Employer appealed the Supreme Court' ruling to the Appellate Division. 

As Employer did not contend that arbitration of the grievance was prohibited by law or public policy, the Appellate Division ruled that only issue before it was whether the parties agreed to arbitrate this particular grievance. 

The Appellate Division concluded that the arbitration provision of the CBA at issue was broad and that there was a reasonable relationship between the subject matter of the dispute, which involves the EO1's claim that its members are entitled to certain payments for retroactive salary increases, and the general subject matter of the CBA.

Noting that some uncertainty existed as to whether the subject matter of the dispute is encompassed within the salary provisions of EO1's CBA or whether the parties contemplated that a separate agreement would be required for wage increases to be paid retroactively, the Appellate Division, citing Board of Educ. of Watertown City School Dist. v Watertown Educ. Assn., 74 NY2d 912, explained that any alleged ambiguity in the EO1 CBA "regarding the coverage of any applicable provision is ... a matter of contract interpretation for the arbitrator to resolve."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2019/2019_08845.htm