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/

A retirement is involuntary when the claimant's disability caused or contributed to the retirement

A police officer [Claimant] suffered and injury to his lower back while working as a police officer in 2012 and never returned to work. Claimant subsequently accepted a performance of duty disability retirement 2015 and then raised the issue of entitlement to awards for lost wages after retiring. Ultimately the Workers' Compensation Board found that Claimant's retirement was causally related and that he had not voluntarily withdrawn from the labor market. The Board further found that Officer remained temporarily totally disabled and was entitled to lost wage awards for the period between March 13, 2015 and July 12, 2017, and remanded for a determination on the issue of permanency. The employer appealed the Board's determination.

The Appellate Division, citing Romanko v New York Univ., 154 AD3d 1031, affirmed the Board's decision, explained "Generally, a claimant who voluntarily withdraws from the labor market by retiring is not entitled to workers' compensation benefits unless the claimant's disability caused or contributed to the retirement." Further, said the court, "Whether a retirement or withdrawal from the labor market is voluntary is a factual determination to be made by the Board, and its decision will be upheld when supported by substantial evidence."

As to the nature of Officer's retirement, the opinion states that "A retirement is involuntary when the claimant's disability caused or contributed to the retirement." Here the Board credited Officer's testimony that he had accepted retirement because his "work-related back injury left him unable to work." Further, the Workers' Compensation carrier's medical consultant opined that Officer "had a temporary total disability and was 'incapable of returning to the workforce in any capacity' and that he anticipated that the condition would be permanent."

Affirming the Board's decision, the Appellate Division said that there was "substantial evidence supporting the Board's conclusion that [Officer's] disability caused or contributed to his retirement and,thus,that it was involuntary.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2019/2019_09072.htm

Employee disciplined for allegedly violating agency rules

A New York City sanitation worker [Worker] was found to have violated agency rules by being absent without leave, improperly taking emergency leave, failing to immediately report an accident, failing to report to the clinic as required, performing an unauthorized pickup, and disobeying an order. 

Of the 15 alleged violations of agency rules, only six were sustained.

OATH Administrative Law Judge John B. Spooner recommended that Worker be suspended four days for each sustained violation, for a total of 24 days, reasoning that none of the violations were serious or shown to be disruptive to the unit operations and that the large number of dismissed violations suggested that a few supervisors issued complaints without sufficient justification.

The Appointing Authority adopted Judge Spooner’s findings and recommendations.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://archive.citylaw.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/oath/20_cases/20-120.pdf